[erlang-questions] Typed records and erl_parse
Tue Dec 5 10:51:37 CET 2006
Who would suffer if we changed the format of the record attribute given
Slightly longer version:
We are experimenting with adding type annotations in record declarations
in order to make use of them in the Dialyzer. Since we don't want to
keep this in a separate declaration we have changed our version of the
erl_parse to have a different representation of the record attribute.
In principle, the format of the record attribute can be made backwards
compatible, but we forsee some future problems in keeping different
formats of the current records and their typed counterparts, so we would
really like to make them the same attribute whether they have type
information or not.
Of course, we also have to change some parts of the compiler in order to
make this work, but before we go about and do these changes we would
like to know if there are people out there (outside of the compiler) who
rely on the format of what the erl_parse gives you for records.
So, again. Who would suffer if we changed the format of the record
attribute given by erl_parse?
More information about the erlang-questions