[erlang-patches] improved orddict performance

Pedram Nimreezi <>
Fri Oct 4 09:34:18 CEST 2013


That's actually a pretty good point,
Backwards compatibility in Erlang is usually a slow gradual 3 version
process..
But it might be prudent to throw a warning when a non orddict is
introduced.


On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Rich Neswold <>wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Steve Vinoski <> wrote:
>
>> OK, Anthony brought up yet another issue with my previous modified
>> orddict, which is that if someone passes an improper list instead of an
>> orddict, the new version acts differently than the old. Since the goal is
>> backwards compatibility with improved performance, I've added a fourth
>> commit that deals with these issues.
>>
>
> I'm not sure whether this is the backwards compatibility one wants to
> preserve. Usually you want to preserve an API, but in this case you're
> preserving code that manipulates the internal representation of an orddict.
> Any code that uses the orddict API should not end up with an improper list.
> Any code that passes an improper list to orddict should break.
>
> --
> Rich
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-patches mailing list
> 
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-patches
>
>


-- 
/* Sincerely
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pedram Nimreezi - Chief Technology Officer  */

// The hardest part of design … is keeping features out. - Donald Norman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-patches/attachments/20131004/7a3266c7/attachment.html>


More information about the erlang-patches mailing list