Proposed change to libraries
Mon Feb 14 14:26:01 CET 2005
Kostis Sagonas wrote:
> First let me enumerate the things we (all?) agree upon:
> 1. Something needs to be done in libraries to make them more consistent
> with their documentation and allow more effective type checking.
Erlang is not a type-safe language, so it seems to me
that the libraries are consistent with the
documentation if they work as advertized, for
advertized types. There is no implicit suggestion that
they should refuse to work on other types.
I see guards as a pattern matching tool (i.e. to
provide a separate clause for separate types), not as a
type checking tool. I practice test-driven development,
so I am not interested in the compiler doing any type
checking. What matters to me, as a programmer, is that
Erlang allows me to write simple, economical code where
I don't need to explicitly declare types or guarantee
What the motivation is for having stricter type
checking in Erlang?
More information about the erlang-questions