[erlang-questions] Typed records and erl_parse
Tue Dec 5 11:53:33 CET 2006
Christian S wrote:
> The changes as talked about in this thread I take it?
Yes, this is correct.
> Is this something erl_parse will accept to parse but throw away?
It will parse it and return a representation of the typed fields that
include the declared type. For record fields not containing a type
declaration, the type will be the any() type. This is what might casue
trouble for people, if they pattern match on the actual field
> Will these type annotations spread out in a future to be used in other
> places in the erlang language? Perhaps as shorthand for type-guards
> when pattern matching?
This is somewhat unrelated to what we are doing, but that doesn't
prevent that we can make use of the type information in other ways in
For now, our focus is to use this information to give better warnings
from Dialyzer. You might look at it as a contract. The user states that
this is how I intend to use this record, and if Dialyzer can find that
this is not the case you can get a warning, and if Dialyzer cannot say
exactly how the record is constructed, it can assume that the
declarations can be trusted until it can prove otherwise.
More information about the erlang-questions