convention for unused variables

Clara Benac Earle <>
Mon Oct 18 19:46:11 CEST 2004


Something related to what you want to do here is what they do with 
"refactoring" where the idea is "/changing the structure of a program 
without changing its semantics/."

Here, at the University of Kent, significant work has been done for 
refactoring Haskell. At the moment we have submitted a proposal for 
refactoring Erlang, so let's hope it is successful! :-)

http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/projects/refactor-fp/

Cheers,
Clara


you express here and that can help in general in modifying code but  
your code in a


Ulf Wiger (AL/EAB) wrote:

>OTP R10 now warns about unused variables per default.
>This is basically a Good Thing, but after having spent about two days
>cleaning up modules where 99% of the work amounts to inserting a 
>leading underscore in variable names that were only there for documentation's
>sake, I can't help thinking that there ought to be a way to automate this
>process.
>
>The really nice option would perhaps be that the Emacs mode (or Distel)
>were able to parse the warnings from the compiler, and jump to each unused
>variable, allowing the programmer to change from Var to _Var with one keypress.
>
>I would not want to do a 'replace all', since there's perhaps a 1/100 chance that
>the 'unused variable' warning is actually caused by a bug (The 1/100 ratio assuming
>that the programmer has _not_ used the convention with _ prefixes.)
>
>Someone who's up to speed on Emacs Lisp could probably do this fairly quickly.
>I would prefer to tackle that learning curve some other time. (-:
>
>/Uffe
>
>  
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20041018/b3f4b40e/attachment.html>


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list