Doubt about funs
Wed Feb 21 11:44:32 CET 2001
Ulf Wiger <> wrote:
> Since funs are actually made into real functions by the compiler, they
> seem to have roughly the same properties as ordinary functions during
> code change. I've run some tests, and it does seem to be the case that
> as long as the fun is tail recursive (doesn't wait for a return
> value), then upgrading doesn't break the fun as long as the arity
> stays the same. This is the same as for ordinary functions.
erik> What you describe will happen in the current implementation if
erik> the function defining F is changed (or any funs are added or
erik> removed before the fun defining F).
So, it's still a problem. If this problem was solved, so that it
worked as you described above, I'd be the first to start using funs
More information about the erlang-questions