Erlang is getting too big

Thomas Lindgren thomasl_erlang@REDACTED
Tue Oct 14 16:25:51 CEST 2003

--- Richard Carlsson <richardc@REDACTED> wrote:
> > 2. Assuming that we do:
> >
> > Another approach to unifying guards with
> expressions
> > would be to introduce the appropriate type tests
> as
> > BIFs. Apart from float/1, this seems
> straightforward?
> Well, the "is_..." forms are BIFs, but I assume you
> mean to keep the names integer(X) etc. and also
> introduce them as BIFs.


> But since auto-recognized BIFs override local
> definitions (sic!),
> this would probably break a lot of existing code.

If you mean BIFs that do not need the erlang: prefix,
then the override nowadays goes in the other
direction. (And correctly so, IMO.)


abs(X) when X > 0 ->
abs(X) ->

1> c(test).
... Warning: defining BIF abs/1


Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list