Fun syntax
Vlad Dumitrescu
vlad_dumitrescu@REDACTED
Mon Jul 29 21:52:31 CEST 2002
Hi,
I am a little confused about the syntax for functional objects when the
referred function is remote. The way to define a fun is then
Fun = {lists, reverse}
I find this a little inconsequent. Why not
Fun = fun lists:reverse/1 ?
What I find even strange is that it works to write something like
{lists, reverse}([1,2,3]).
Wouldn't it be cleaner with an unified syntax for funs? The tuple notation
looks like remains from the old, while it working side by side with the
normal Module:Function notation feels almost like a bug... Is it?
best regards,
Vlad
_________________________________________________________________
Med MSN Foto kan du enkelt dela med dig av dina fotografier och beställa
kopior: http://photos.msn.se
More information about the erlang-questions
mailing list