Tue Jan 21 19:10:15 CET 2003
Bjorn Gustavsson wrote:
> Because records are so important, we must really make sure
> we do it right this time.
No argument there!
> 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 :) ).
Sorry, Bjorn, that must be just about the lamest excuse
yet. I'm sure an imaginative person on this mailing list
could help you out there. I'll even throw in my 2 bits:
'domain' -- a user-defined static type, normally with
non-local scope. (Borrowed from Turbo/PDC/Visual Prolog,
incidently -- except the scope qualification.)
Anyway, isn't 'struct' meant to replace 'record'?
> That's why other less important language features get
> done first.
Well, that sounds reasonable as long as you're 100% sure
that such work won't influence the options available for a
new record/struct/domain implementation. Just make sure
you're not putting the cart before the horse! ;-)
But really, IMHO it probably would be best if one cleaned
up existing language features before introducing new ones.
It's *always* better to build on a clean base.
[snipped James Hague's message]
More information about the erlang-questions