OTP design

Bengt Kleberg <>
Fri Jun 14 13:26:39 CEST 2002


> From: "Vlad Dumitrescu" <>
> To: <>

 
> - there are some parts that seem to me to be possible to "open up" in order
> to allow different implementations to be plugged in. One example is the code
> module, where Joe had to hack it in order to make SAE working, but other
> ways to handle that might be envisaged. Another is GS, where the backend
> should be possible to switch to a non-TclTk one.
>   Is fixing this something to be considered? Do you think it needs to be
> "fixed"?

perhaps there are (atleast) 2 possibilities?
1 writing ones own module, that calls the standard module for most things.
2 replacing the standard module. reimplementing all the things that are good 
enough.

which one of the two are you considering?

to help with 2 it would be nice with something like this (from scheme):

> (define builtin_display display)
> (define display
	(lambda (arg)
		(builtin_display "all mine")
		(newline)
		(builtin_display arg)
		(newline)))
> (display 'asd)
all mine
asd
> 


bengt




More information about the erlang-questions mailing list