Mon Jan 13 14:16:08 CET 2003
> > So, it would seem that even to make a simple analysis tool
> would require the
> > compiler to hold onto the knowledge of record definitions a
> few more steps
> > into the process (before finally turning accesses into
> > calls). Any comments from Compiler writers??
> Changing the compiler would be simplest part. Updating all tools that
> use the abstract code (the debugger, xref, and cover) would
> be more work.
Well this sounds very positive. I guess you see no issue with the principle
of getting xref to do record consistency checking - it is simply a matter of
prioritisation and work.. Or am I reading too much into your reply??!
NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER:
This email (including attachments) is confidential. If you have received
this email in error please notify the sender immediately and delete this
email from your system without copying or disseminating it or placing any
reliance upon its contents. We cannot accept liability for any breaches of
confidence arising through use of email. Any opinions expressed in this
email (including attachments) are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect our opinions. We will not accept responsibility for any commitments
made by our employees outside the scope of our business. We do not warrant
the accuracy or completeness of such information.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions