Shock horror

[Vlad Dumitrescu]

> > If I may add my humble opinion, this is why having a "-uses([module])." 
>or
> > similar would help - by making the relations between modules explicit. 
>This
> > might even encompass applys with variable arguments - only calls to 
>listed
> > modules will be allowed.
>
>	What about "fun(M,F) -> M:F(myargs)"-style code then? ok, one can
>think of not providing a "-uses()" header as "heck, who knows what it
>uses, allow everything", but it's a bit like the current
>-compile(export_all): a hack frowned upon.

I know there are problems with my idea. But in most cases, the allowable M:F 
combinations are limited. It really might be anything only for the shell and 
other similar apps, where the input might indeed be anything. But then it 
would be perfectly all right to allow everything!

Of course, no one can stop someone from using export_all, or in this case to 
declare use of any module, but there is a balance between ease of 
development (make it work first without thinking of compilation details) and 
ease of delivery (do not ship more stuff than is needed) and maintainance 
(know what a change will affect in the system).

I haven't either been thinking about how easy to use and implement such a 
feature might be, just got the idea and started the brainstorming! :-)

regards,
Vlad



_________________________________________________________________
Kom med i världens största e-posttjänst med MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com