Proposed change to libraries

Thomas Lindgren <>
Mon Feb 14 19:50:58 CET 2005

--- Kostis Sagonas <> wrote:
> Let me assure you that whatever we do would not
> force you to change
> your favourite working habbits.  Nobody will
> _require_ you to declare
> types.  But you will not be able to write calls such
> as:
> 	lists:map(gazonk, []).
> and expect them not to throw an exception at
> *runtime*.

While changing lists:map itself may be innocuous, I
think the principle of changing code to suit type
checking may well stand some discussion.

The deeper question, in my mind, is to what extent
this sort of mandated extra checking will impact the
whole of OTP in the long run. That is, if we go in
this direction, where should we stop, and why? 

E.g., should we at some point in the future
require/ensure that gb_trees functions get gb_tree
inputs in the right places? Why or why not? etc etc.

>  > What the motivation is for having stricter type
> checking in Erlang?
> So that people who choose to do this, can.

Hm. That's not a very compelling argument in favour of
 changing it for everyone. Again, for lists:map this
might not matter very much. After generalizing your
argument to a larger scope, the issue seems less clear


Do you Yahoo!? 
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! 

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list