Rule for checking we're not calling length(_) =:= 0 or length(_) > 0?

[paulo-ferraz-oliveira]

This is an expensive operation and can most likely be avoided.

[elbrujohalcon]

Yeah. The robot-butt rule :)
I wonder how many things we can catch… 🤔 … Off the top of my head:

length(List) =:= 0,
1 =:= length(List),
0 < erlang:length(List),
case erlang:length(List) of
    0 -> …;
    _ -> …
end,
try length(something:that(returns, a, list)) of
    X when X > 0 -> …
catch
    …
end,

[elbrujohalcon]

I would 100% call this rule prefer_robot_butt and I would reject any PR trying to call it otherwise.

[paulo-ferraz-oliveira]

No problem with that name. We have a sense of humour, too. Otherwise it'd be called Erlang Linter and not Elvis.

[paulo-ferraz-oliveira]

#473

Won't actually be able to do the robot butt given our rules on operator spaces :) but we could also open an exception for those hahaha