Wed Mar 9 11:32:54 CET 2005
Maybe "static" functions, atleast I want define/overload the
constructor and check the arguments and do some init work, before
returning the module/object to the caller.
Hmm, the proposal with a erlang:create_parameterized_module(?MODULE, [Params]).
opens up the possibilty to change the parameters as well, by returning a new
module in the calls.
A0 = tree:new(this),
A1 = A0:insert(turns_erlang),
A2 = A1:insert(towards_oo),
Good or bad?
Code upgrades on these modules are hard aswell, you can never change the
length of the parameter list..
Vlad Dumitrescu writes:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Raimo Niskanen" <raimo@REDACTED>
> > I.e. I want to have functions that can be called without being
> > parameterized (sp?).
> You mean something like "static" functions?
> The problem as I see it is that the APIs are usually located in the same file as
> the implementation. For abstract modules, it isn't as easy to use, because the
> module name is no longer an atom, but has to be passed around in a variable.
> Maybe separating the API from the implementation isn't a bad idea even for
> normal gen_servers and friends...
> Regarding the issue at hand, the compiler could check that the module variables
> are not referenced inside that function, and that it only calls such static
> functions (or external ones, of course) and generate them in a separate internal
> module. Or actually, the parametrized module would be differently named (because
> static calls should use the name in the source file).
Dan Gudmundsson Project: Mnesia, Erlang/OTP
Ericsson Utvecklings AB Phone: +46 8 727 5762
UAB/F/P Mobile: +46 70 519 9469
S-125 25 Stockholm Visit addr: Armborstv 1
More information about the erlang-questions