You cannot view this unit as you're not logged in yet. Go to Account to login.
13 Comments
Francisco Quinteroon November 24, 2020 at 7:02 pm
Awesome and thank you!
These pattern matching exercises have clear my mind and now I feel more confident. In the beginning I thought I wouldn’t complete the exercises without looking at the solution but gave them a try, read my notes, and tests passed!
The second one was a tricky one, though, but was a nice thing to learn.
It’s a good question and this may sound like I’m dodging the question, but I’d say it really depends. 🙂
I prefer a case statement when the code is pretty simple. Like just a simple transformation. When the body of code in a case clause starts to get more involved or complex, I think about doing it differently. Separate function clauses can be easier to test as well.
Sometimes reading some code I notice I needed to practice and put in my mind exactly these things.
And here was a good sample to blow my mind.
I like the exercise with tests, It was very helpful.
In some books you don’t see this important things you need to understand and it’s very simple now for me.
Thank’s!
The 2nd exercise was difficult for me, I don’t know why. Maybe I need to get used to use pattern matching more often. I have all tests passed with this solution:
def has_three_elements?(tuple) do
tuple_size(tuple) == 3
end
Yes, that works! However you don’t get any of the benefits of pattern matching. What we’re building up to is letting the function header do the sorting for which function body will be executed. The pattern match replaces your conditional logic… gone are the days of multiple nested IF statements. Things become much clearer, easier to understand and maintain.
Awesome and thank you!
These pattern matching exercises have clear my mind and now I feel more confident. In the beginning I thought I wouldn’t complete the exercises without looking at the solution but gave them a try, read my notes, and tests passed!
The second one was a tricky one, though, but was a nice thing to learn.
Is it a better practice to create multiple function clauses or to create one clause with a case statement?
It’s a good question and this may sound like I’m dodging the question, but I’d say it really depends. 🙂
I prefer a
casestatement when the code is pretty simple. Like just a simple transformation. When the body of code in a case clause starts to get more involved or complex, I think about doing it differently. Separate function clauses can be easier to test as well.Sometimes reading some code I notice I needed to practice and put in my mind exactly these things.
And here was a good sample to blow my mind.
I like the exercise with tests, It was very helpful.
In some books you don’t see this important things you need to understand and it’s very simple now for me.
Thank’s!
Awesome! I’m so glad you’re enjoying it!
Very helpful. Practice makes perfect. Thanks for putting this tutorial together.
Kinda reminds me of the Ruby Koans project, which was terrific.
This is really cool. Got my pattern-matching confidence on a solid level. Much appreciation for this awesome tutorials and tests.
Thank you, the best i found so far. Would buy the next course for sure.
Maybe you can do something with recursion? 🙂
I’m glad it’s helpful! Yes, the CodeFlow course covers recursion along with a lot more.
The 2nd exercise was difficult for me, I don’t know why. Maybe I need to get used to use pattern matching more often. I have all tests passed with this solution:
def has_three_elements?(tuple) do tuple_size(tuple) == 3 endYes, that works! However you don’t get any of the benefits of pattern matching. What we’re building up to is letting the function header do the sorting for which function body will be executed. The pattern match replaces your conditional logic… gone are the days of multiple nested IF statements. Things become much clearer, easier to understand and maintain.
And I also interesting where’s exercise #4? why it’s missed.
Ha! That’s crazy that no one pointed that out before! There is no missing #4… the numbering was off. Fixed. Thanks!