enums anyone?

Ryan Rawson <>
Fri Aug 4 20:25:19 CEST 2006

This brings up an important point.  Adding syntax to an existing
language is something that needs to be carefully done.  The
prototypical warning is "you'll become perl" - more of a fairy tale,
but we all know how that ends.  The next warning is "You'll be Java

If you were able to only add exactly ONE syntax extension to the base
Erlang language what would it be?  Would it be Enums?

I don't have my personal answer, but I'm sure it would not be that.
Not enough bang for your buck.


On 8/4/06, Sean Hinde <> wrote:
> >
> >   as far as i can tell it's to get the compiler to catch typos like
> > "flase" for "false".
> Spellcheck the atom table :-)
> Sean

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list