export_to (Was: Re: the OO metaphor)
Mon Dec 4 10:45:11 CET 2000
> In order to manage code change without killing the process, fun's
> should only be used for short tasks. By using a fun as the topmost
> function in long lived server processes, you will effectively force
> a kill of the process at next code change.
Good point, though the question it raises is whether the current code
replacement semantics for fun:s is what we want. Wouldn't it be more
useful if closures survived code change, for example? Why shouldn't
"National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and
more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to
freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of
production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto."
-- Communist Manifesto
More information about the erlang-questions