Hopefully simple problem
Mon Jan 19 10:43:23 CET 2004
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 09:51:05AM +0100, Bjorn Gustavsson wrote:
> Yes, using a real fun instead of a "tuple fun" is
> recommended. That will be faster too, as a fun contains
> a direct pointer to the code to be executed, while a
> "tuple fun" requires a lookup in a hash table.
> We will probably never be able to remove "tuple funs"
> from the language (for backwards compatibility),
And there may be use for them, because they work with a variable
number of arguments. (Not needed in the original question.)
> but we still recommend that you don't use them in new code.
How about helping avoiding them by introducing the syntax `fun
foo:bar/3' as a shorthand for `fun(X1,X2,X3) -> foo:bar(X1,X2,X3) end'
Carsten Schultz (2:38, 33:47), FB Mathematik, FU Berlin
PGP/GPG key on the pgp.net key servers,
fingerprint on my home page.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the erlang-questions