Tue Jan 21 14:13:58 CET 2003
Because records are so important, we must really make sure we do it right this
time. We can't do another attempt (for one thing, it will be difficult to
find a new good keyword when both "record" and "struct" are in use :) ).
That's why other less important language features get done first.
James Hague <> writes:
> >What about cond (or something like it)?
> >Isn't that coming soon to Erlang?
> I was always under the impression that the reason records were never
> replaced with something neater was because there was little incentive to go
> in and fiddle with the core language. But now "try" is on the way, as are
> structured modules, and possibly "cond." Surely record improvements are a
> higher priority?
Björn Gustavsson Ericsson Utvecklings AB
+46 8 727 56 87 125 25 Älvsjö
More information about the erlang-questions