[erlang-patches] Attempt at making stacktraces more readable

[Björn-Egil Dahlberg]

On 2015-02-25 11:37, Björn Gustavsson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Björn Gustavsson
> <bgustavsson@REDACTED> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Anthony Ramine <n.oxyde@REDACTED> wrote:
>>> Thanks for the example.
>>>
>>> Apart from the infix operators, I can print such stack traces easily.
>>> Would printing of operators as fully-qualified erlang function calls be a
>>> game breaker?
>>>
>> No, it wouldn't. Minor differences are OK if
>> it simplifies the code in the run-time system.
>>
> If you want to do further work on this topic,
> create a pull request.
>

Anthony, beware .. as you probably already know this in the same area as 
https://github.com/erlang/otp/pull/359

If we can mitigate the memory issue, I think sending a term and then 
formatting it in Erlang would be better. Less code in beam is always 
better in my view.
I haven't looked at the whole error-handling stack recently though, I 
could be missing something.

// Björn-Egil