export_to (Was: Re: the OO metaphor)

Erik (Happi) Johansson <>
Mon Dec 4 11:15:39 CET 2000


Thomas Lindgren wrote:

> 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
> they?

This is an interesting question that you raise.
 (What should the code replacement semantics for fun:s be?)

As it is today a fun survives code change as long as the code doesn't change
to much :)

The problem is what do you do with local calls from a fun,
if the fun is allowed to live indefinitely then the code for the
module containing the fun must also be kept indefinitely.
With proper code GC this would not be a problem but the question is
whether this is a price we are willing to pay.

/Erik




More information about the erlang-questions mailing list