Fun syntax & language feature poll

Erik.Stenman <>
Tue Jul 30 11:43:23 CEST 2002

Matthias Lang wrote:
>  > 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}
> Are you mixing up several weakly-related issues? The tuple syntax for
> funs is deprecated and has (almost?) nothing to do with 'local' or
> 'remote'. You can use the same fun syntax to send funs between local
> and remote processes.

I think you misunderstood Vlad, I am sure he meant local or remote call 
as in calls within the same module (local) or calls to another module (remote) 
which has nothing to do with local or remote processes. 
Unfortunately these two types of calls also distinguishes which version of 
module is to be called.

Speaking of which, why not remove this feature of Erlang (that a remote call 
calls the latest version of loaded code) and instead introduce a special update 
call like: 
 enter_latest foo(...) ?

Except in the shell who uses this feature?
If you want to write an application that really supports upgrades you have think this
through and design with it in mind from the beginning anyway.

Removing this feature would do wonders to the possibilities of optimization...  

Comments, flames, arguments are welcome.

 N. Erik M. Stenman
 Eric Conspiracy Secret Laboratories       
I'm Happi, you should be happy.
Praeterea censeo "0xCA" scribere Erlang posse.

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list