Erlang is getting too big
Tue Oct 14 13:51:06 CEST 2003
Thomas Lindgren wrote:
> --- Bengt Kleberg <Bengt.Kleberg@REDACTED> wrote:
>>oops. what is the difference between ',' and 'and'?
>>and ';' and 'or'? i
>>have been using them to mean the same thing.
> As I recall, ";" can't be nested inside a guard, while
> 'or' can.
>>eiffel has 'andalso' and 'orelse'. the only :-)
>>people that finds 'and'
>>and 'or' strange are the ones that has a c
> My main objections are the added noise from long
> names, the limited usefulness of strict and/or, and
> the fact that the obvious names are used for the
> unobvious version.
imho the only people that think it is ''unobvious'' that and/or evaluate
all their ''arguments'' are the ones that has a c background.
>>>My modest proposal:
>>>- drop is_* guards (unless there is a pressing
>>>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
> If that is a big problem, why not introduce a new
> float-making function, rather than a collection of
> extra type tests? Seems simpler all-around.
i find it a good thing (tm) that boolean-return-value-functions are
recognisable from their name.
More information about the erlang-questions