Erlang is getting too big
Tue Oct 14 08:47:43 CEST 2003
--- Kostis Sagonas <kostis@REDACTED> wrote:
> 1. "Duplicate guards": There is absolutely no
> need to teach the old
> guards. Simply introduce the new is_* ones!
Why introduce the is_* guards in the first place? I
don't see the point.
Here's another part that could stand cleaning up:
- guard syntax 1: "," and ";"
- guard syntax 2: "and", "or"
(are they there anymore?)
- expression syntax 1: "and", "or"
- expression syntax 2: "andalso", "orelse"
All of them working somewhat differently.
My modest proposal:
- drop is_* guards (unless there is a pressing reason
to keep them?)
- get rid of strict and/or in expressions and move
andalso/orelse to "and"/"or". This just seems to be a
bug cast in stone.
- write guards as arbitrarily nested (G1,G2) and
(G1;G2) and drop the and/or-syntax in guards.
All of these get rid of unnecessary complexity of
> 2. "Java style module naming"
> Is this so difficult a concept to grasp?
Given the semantic problems of Erlang packages, I'm
afraid it is :-)
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
More information about the erlang-questions