<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE chapter SYSTEM "chapter.dtd">

<chapter>
  <header>
    <copyright>
      <year>2001</year><year>2016</year>
      <holder>Ericsson AB. All Rights Reserved.</holder>
    </copyright>
    <legalnotice>
      Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
      you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
      You may obtain a copy of the License at
 
          http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

      Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
      distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
      WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
      See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
      limitations under the License.
    </legalnotice>

    <title>List Handling</title>
    <prepared>Bjorn Gustavsson</prepared>
    <docno></docno>
    <date>2007-11-16</date>
    <rev></rev>
    <file>listHandling.xml</file>
  </header>

  <section>
    <title>Creating a List</title>
    
    <p>Lists can only be built starting from the end and attaching list
    elements at the beginning. If you use the "<c>++</c>" operator as
    follows, a new list is created that is a copy of the elements in
    <c>List1</c>, followed by <c>List2</c>:</p>

    <code type="erl">
List1 ++ List2</code>

    <p>Looking at how <c>lists:append/1</c> or <c>++</c> would be
    implemented in plain Erlang, clearly the first list is copied:</p>

    <code type="erl">
append([H|T], Tail) ->
    [H|append(T, Tail)];
append([], Tail) ->
    Tail.</code>

    <p>When recursing and building a list, it is important to ensure
    that you attach the new elements to the beginning of the list. In
    this way, you will build <em>one</em> list, not hundreds or thousands
    of copies of the growing result list.</p>

    <p>Let us first see how it is not to be done:</p>

    <p><em>DO NOT</em></p>
    <code type="erl"><![CDATA[
bad_fib(N) ->
    bad_fib(N, 0, 1, []).

bad_fib(0, _Current, _Next, Fibs) ->
    Fibs;
bad_fib(N, Current, Next, Fibs) -> 
    bad_fib(N - 1, Next, Current + Next, Fibs ++ [Current]).]]></code>

    <p>Here more than one list is built. In each iteration step a new list
    is created that is one element longer than the new previous list.</p>

    <p>To avoid copying the result in each iteration, build the list in
    reverse order and reverse the list when you are done:</p>

    <p><em>DO</em></p>
    <code type="erl"><![CDATA[
tail_recursive_fib(N) ->
    tail_recursive_fib(N, 0, 1, []).

tail_recursive_fib(0, _Current, _Next, Fibs) ->
    lists:reverse(Fibs);
tail_recursive_fib(N, Current, Next, Fibs) -> 
    tail_recursive_fib(N - 1, Next, Current + Next, [Current|Fibs]).]]></code>

  </section>

  <section>
    <title>List Comprehensions</title>

    <p>Lists comprehensions still have a reputation for being slow.
    They used to be implemented using funs, which used to be slow.</p>

    <p>In recent Erlang/OTP releases (including R12B), a list comprehension:</p>

    <code type="erl"><![CDATA[
[Expr(E) || E <- List]]]></code>

    <p>is basically translated to a local function:</p>

    <code type="erl">
'lc^0'([E|Tail], Expr) ->
    [Expr(E)|'lc^0'(Tail, Expr)];
'lc^0'([], _Expr) -> [].</code>

    <p>In R12B, if the result of the list comprehension will <em>obviously</em>
    not be used, a list will not be constructed. For example, in this code:</p>
    
    <code type="erl"><![CDATA[
[io:put_chars(E) || E <- List],
ok.]]></code>
 
    <p>or in this code:</p>
   
    <code type="erl"><![CDATA[
...
case Var of
    ... ->
        [io:put_chars(E) || E <- List];
    ... ->
end,
some_function(...),
...]]></code>
    
    <p>the value is not assigned to a variable, not passed to another function,
    and not returned. This means that there is no need to construct a list and
    the compiler will simplify the code for the list comprehension to:</p>

    <code type="erl">
'lc^0'([E|Tail], Expr) ->
    Expr(E),
    'lc^0'(Tail, Expr);
'lc^0'([], _Expr) -> [].</code>

  </section>

  <section>
    <title>Deep and Flat Lists</title>

    <p><seealso marker="stdlib:lists#flatten/1">lists:flatten/1</seealso>
    builds an entirely new list. It is therefore expensive, and even
    <em>more</em> expensive than the <c>++</c> operator (which copies its
    left argument, but not its right argument).</p>

    <p>In the following situations, you can easily avoid calling
    <c>lists:flatten/1</c>:</p>

    <list type="bulleted">
      <item>When sending data to a port. Ports understand deep lists
       so there is no reason to flatten the list before sending it to
       the port.</item>
      <item>When calling BIFs that accept deep lists, such as
      <seealso marker="erts:erlang#list_to_binary/1">list_to_binary/1</seealso> or
      <seealso marker="erts:erlang#iolist_to_binary/1">iolist_to_binary/1</seealso>.</item>
      <item>When you know that your list is only one level deep, you can use
      <seealso marker="stdlib:lists#append/1">lists:append/1</seealso>.</item>
    </list>

    <section>
      <title>Port Example</title>

    <p><em>DO</em></p>
    <pre>
      ...
      port_command(Port, DeepList)
      ...</pre>

    <p><em>DO NOT</em></p>
    <pre>
      ...
      port_command(Port, lists:flatten(DeepList))
      ...</pre>

    <p>A common way to send a zero-terminated string to a port is the following:</p>

    <p><em>DO NOT</em></p>
    <pre>
      ...
      TerminatedStr = String ++ [0], % String="foo" => [$f, $o, $o, 0]
      port_command(Port, TerminatedStr)
      ...</pre>

    <p>Instead:</p>

    <p><em>DO</em></p>
    <pre>
      ...
      TerminatedStr = [String, 0], % String="foo" => [[$f, $o, $o], 0]
      port_command(Port, TerminatedStr) 
      ...</pre>
    </section>

    <section>
      <title>Append Example</title>

    <p><em>DO</em></p>
    <pre>
      > lists:append([[1], [2], [3]]).
      [1,2,3]
      ></pre>

    <p><em>DO NOT</em></p>
    <pre>
      > lists:flatten([[1], [2], [3]]).
      [1,2,3]
      ></pre>
    </section>
  </section>

  <section>
    <title>Recursive List Functions</title>

    <p>In Section 7.2, the following myth was exposed:
    <seealso marker="myths#tail_recursive">Tail-Recursive Functions
    are Much Faster Than Recursive Functions</seealso>.</p>

    <p>To summarize, in R12B there is usually not much difference between
    a body-recursive list function and tail-recursive function that reverses
    the list at the end. Therefore, concentrate on writing beautiful code
    and forget about the performance of your list functions. In the
    time-critical parts of your code (and only there), <em>measure</em>
    before rewriting your code.</p>

    <note><p>This section is about list functions that <em>construct</em>
    lists. A tail-recursive function that does not construct a list runs
    in constant space, while the corresponding body-recursive function
    uses stack space proportional to the length of the list.</p></note>

    <p>For example, a function that sums a list of integers, is
    <em>not</em> to be written as follows:</p>
    
    <p><em>DO NOT</em></p>
    <code type="erl">
recursive_sum([H|T]) -> H+recursive_sum(T);
recursive_sum([])    -> 0.</code>

    <p>Instead:</p>

    <p><em>DO</em></p>
    <code type="erl">
sum(L) -> sum(L, 0).

sum([H|T], Sum) -> sum(T, Sum + H);
sum([], Sum)    -> Sum.</code>
  </section>
</chapter>

