Erlang is getting too big
Tue Oct 14 10:07:19 CEST 2003
Thomas Lindgren wrote:
> 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.
oops. what is the difference between ',' and 'and'? and ';' and 'or'? i
have been using them to mean the same thing.
eiffel has 'andalso' and 'orelse'. the only :-) people that finds 'and'
and 'or' strange are the ones that has a c background.
> My modest proposal:
> - drop is_* guards (unless there is a pressing reason
> to keep them?)
there is no static typing. therefore it helps (me) to be able to
recognise the return value of a function from its name. one way of doing
this is to teach users (by using the concept in guards) to call
functions that return booleans is_*.
moreover, there is a guard float() and a bif float(). the bif returns a
float, not a boolean.
this (imho) is confusing
More information about the erlang-questions