[erlang-patches] EEP37: Funs with names

[Anthony Ramine]

Rebased! :)

Does it mean it may be included before R17? Branch maint is for minor
releases, right?

-- 
Anthony Ramine

Le 20 mars 2013 à 10:31, Fredrik a écrit :

> On 03/20/2013 09:53 AM, Pedram Nimreezi wrote:
>> +1 This is an especially useful console enhancement that allows
>> anonymous function recursion...
>> 
>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Anthony Ramine<n.oxyde@REDACTED>  wrote:
>>> Will someone ever review this, pretty please with sugar on top?
>>> 
>>> It was postponed for R16A; could you tell me if it can be included in R17?
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Anthony Ramine
>>> 
>>> Le 5 févr. 2013 à 13:51, Anthony Ramine a écrit :
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Rebased against latest master—which I gather is now for R17. Please refetch.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Anthony Ramine
>>>> 
>>>> Le 21 nov. 2012 à 15:36, Anthony Ramine a écrit :
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I had forgotten to update the abstract format documentation, named_fun is
>>>>> now mentioned in absform.xml in the doc commit.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please refetch,
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Anthony Ramine
>>>>> 
>>>>> Le 15 nov. 2012 à 15:22, Henrik Nord a écrit :
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I will add this patch to 'master-pu'.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you for your contribution!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2012-11-14 17:42, Anthony Ramine wrote:
>>>>>>> This patch implements EEP37: Funs with names
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This adds optional names to fun expressions. A named fun expression
>>>>>>> is parsed as a tuple `{named_fun,Loc,Name,Clauses}` in erl_parse.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If a fun expression has a name, it must be present and be the same in
>>>>>>> every of its clauses. The function name shadows the environment of the
>>>>>>> expression shadowing the environment and it is shadowed by the
>>>>>>> environment of the clauses' arguments. An unused function name triggers
>>>>>>> a warning unless it is prefixed by _, just as every variable.
>>>>>>> Variable _ is allowed as a function name.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It is not an error to put a named function in a record field default
>>>>>>> value.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> When transforming to Core Erlang, the named fun Fun is changed into
>>>>>>> the following expression:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   letrec 'Fun'/Arity =
>>>>>>>              fun (Args) ->
>>>>>>>                      let<Fun>  = 'Fun'/Arity
>>>>>>>                      in Case
>>>>>>>   in 'Fun'/Arity
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> where Args is the list of arguments of 'Fun'/Arity and Case the
>>>>>>> Core Erlang expression corresponding to the clauses of Fun.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This transformation allows us to entirely skip any k_var to k_local
>>>>>>> transformation in the fun's clauses bodies.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    https://github.com/nox/otp/compare/erlang:master...eep37
>>>>>>>    https://github.com/nox/otp/compare/erlang:master...eep37.patch
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    git fetch https://github.com/nox/otp eep37
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> /Henrik Nord Erlang/OTP
>>>>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> erlang-patches mailing list
>>> erlang-patches@REDACTED
>>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-patches
>> 
>> 
> Hello,
> To get the patch going in pu,
> Could you rebase it upon the current 'maint' branch.
> 
> -- 
> 
> BR Fredrik Gustafsson
> Erlang OTP Team
>