Skip to content


Subversion checkout URL

You can clone with
Download ZIP
Tag: svn-import
Fetching contributors…

Cannot retrieve contributors at this time

293 lines (216 sloc) 8.872 kB
EEP: 26
Title: Make andalso and orelse tail-recursive
Version: $Revision$
Last-Modified: $Date$
Author: Bjorn Gustavsson <>
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Erlang-Version: R12B-5
Content-Type: text/plain
Created: 28-Jan-2009
Erlang 5.1 added the ability to use 'andalso', 'orelse',
'and', and 'or' in guards. However, the semantics for
'andalso' and 'orelse' differs from that in other related
languages, causing confusion and inefficiency.
I propose making 'andalso' and 'orelse' tail-recursive.
This EEP is partly based on Richard O'Keefe's EEP 17,
but has a narrower scope.
Currently, (E1 andalso E2) as an expression acts like
case E1 of
false -> false;
true -> case E2 of
false -> false;
true -> true
except that the former raises {badarg,NonBool} exceptions and the
latter raises {case_clause,NonBool} ones.
This should be changed to
case E1 of
false -> false;
true -> E2
Currently, (E1 orelse E2) as an expression acts like
case E1 of
true -> true
false -> case E2 of
true -> true
false -> false
except that the former raises {badarg,NonBool} exceptions and the
latter raises {case_clause,NonBool} ones.
This should be changed to
case E1 of
true -> true;
false -> E2
To unlock the full potential of 'andalso'/'orelse' in Erlang.
Given the current implementation, you either have to make
rewrite code that is naturally written using AND and OR
operators using 'case', or only use 'andalso'/'orelse' when
you know that your lists are relatively short.
For instance, the function 'all/2' that returns 'true' if
all elements of a list satisfies a predicate and 'false'
otherwise, can be written like this:
all(Pred, [Hd|Tail]) ->
Pred(Hd) and all(Pred, Tail);
all(_, []) ->
In each recursion, we test that the current element Hd
satisfies the predicate AND that the rest of the list also
matches the predicate. The code reads almost like English.
Of course, 'and' evaluates both of its operand, so the entire
list will be traversed even if the first element of the list
fails to satisfy the predicate. Furthermore, 'and' is not
tail-recursive, so the function will use stack space
proportional to the length of the list.
To avoid the traversing the rest of the list if one element
fails to satisfy the predicate, we can use 'andalso':
all(Pred, [Hd|Tail]) ->
Pred(Hd) andalso all(Pred, Tail);
all(_, []) ->
As soon as 'Pred(Hd)' returns false, the recursion will
stop and the rest of the list need not be traversed.
Since 'andalso' is not tail-recursive, however, the
function will need stack space proportional to the number
of list elements that are traversed.
To see more clearly that 'andalso' is not tail-recursive,
here is 'all/1' with 'andalso' expanded out to a nested
'case' expression (as it would be in R12B-5):
all(Pred, [Hd|Tail]) ->
case Pred(Hd) of
false -> false;
true -> case all(Pred, Tail) of
false -> false;
true -> true
all(_, []) ->
To make 'all/1' tail-recursive in R12B-5, you would have
to write a 'case' expression yourself:
all(Pred, [Hd|Tail]) ->
case Pred(Hd) of
false -> false;
true -> all(Pred, Tail)
all(_, []) ->
If this EEP is accepted, in R13B we could write like
all(Pred, [Hd|Tail]) ->
Pred(Hd) andalso all(Pred, Tail);
all(_, []) ->
and the 'all/1' function would be tail-recursive.
In my opinion, the latter is easier to read and write.
The 'case' expression is mostly boiler-plate code
where 'true' and 'false' must be correctly spelled
several times. (Misspellings like 'ture' and 'flase'
are quite common, but are in most cases found the
first time the program is tested.)
It could be argued that because Erlang has clearly defined truth
values (unlike some other languages where 0 is false and
everything else true), all operators that operate on booleans
should make sure that their arguments are booleans.
Testing both arguments of 'and' and 'or' makes
sense, because the code executed for those operators always GETS
the values of both operands. But 'andalso' and 'orelse' only test
their second operand SOME of the time.
X = 1, X >= 0 andalso X % checked error
X = 1, X < 0 andalso X % unchecked error
There doesn't seem to be much point in checking SOME of the time,
especially when it does something as dramatic as blocking tail
Richard O'Keefe's motivation in EEP 17 is "Cultural consistency"
with other languages. See [1].
Surprisingly (for me), the subject of this EEP turned out to
be controversial.
I will start this rationale by listing some of the more serious
arguments against this proposal and my counter-arguments, and
finish with the arguments for this proposal.
One argument against is to be that the new construct
will be confusing for users. 'andalso'/'orelse' can no longer
be described as a "boolean operator", but is now a "control
Yes, 'andalso'/'orelse' is no longer a boolean operator in the
sense that it no longer GUARANTEES that it returns a boolean.
However, using 'andalso'/'orelse' as a 'case' expression
case E1 orelse E2 of
true -> ....;
false -> ...
works in the same way as before. Most users certainly will not
notice any difference. And if an operator is not allowed to not
evaluate both of its arguments, it certainly wasn't an operator
before either.
Another argument against is that 'andalso'/'orelse' can be
used in one-liners to write "ugly code", such as
Debug andalso io:format("...", [...])
instead of
Debug -> io:format("...", [...]);
true -> ok
The code might be "ugly" (according to someone's taste or
some definition of "ugly"), but the one-liner is not hard
to understand and I don't see how it could turn into a
code-maintenance problem.
The main argument for making 'andalso'/'orelse' tail-recursive:
The current implementation is dangerous. You could very easily
write non-tail-recursive code, for instance
all(Pred, [Hd|Tail]) ->
Pred(Hd) andalso all(Pred, Tail);
all(_, []) ->
without realizing it and introduce serious performance
problems. (Which has happened in practice, see [2]).
If you cannot use 'andalso'/'orelse' in this way, these
operators become pretty useless. (Some would say
"utterly useless" - see [2].) You have to rewrite
beautiful code (in my opinion) to uglier code (in
comparison, in my opinion) and more error-prone
code (misspelling of 'true'/'false' in the boiler-plate
all(Pred, [Hd|Tail]) ->
case Pred(Hd) of
false -> false;
true -> all(Pred, Tail)
all(_, []) ->
Backwards Compatibility
Any code that ran without raising exceptions will continue
to produce the same results, except for running faster.
Code that did raise exceptions may raise different exceptions
elsewhere later, or may quietly complete in unexpected ways.
I believe it to be unlikely that anyone deliberately relied
on (E1 andalso 0) raising an exception.
Code that was previously broken because these operators have
such surprising behavior will now work in more cases.
Reference Implementation
The proposed change has been implemented and run in our
daily builds without finding any code in Erlang/OTP that
needed to be updated. One test case in the compiler test
suite that that test 'andalso'/'orelse' needed to be updated.
[1] Richard O'Keefe: EEP 17 - Fix andalso and orelse.
[2] Mikael Pettersson: e-mail to erlang-questions:
This document has been placed in the public domain.
Local Variables:
mode: indented-text
indent-tabs-mode: nil
sentence-end-double-space: t
fill-column: 70
coding: utf-8
Jump to Line
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.