Fri Feb 4 13:31:47 CET 2005
One trouble with the alternative solutions is IMHO that it's somewhat more
verbose and less readable.
What about proofreading the code for a compiler where all atoms denoting
parse-tree contents are just numbers?
I think that using <<"atom">> might be good enough for most practical uses
(unless there are issues yet to be revealed), and I'd like to suggest a
shorter notation, something like for example ~atom~. That's 4 chars shorter
and a little easier to read, I think.
More information about the erlang-questions