[erlang-questions] Typed records and erl_parse

Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB) ulf.wiger@REDACTED
Tue Dec 5 14:28:04 CET 2006

Thomas Lindgren wrote:
> In that light, category #1 basically just affects compiler 
> and tool writers, who can update their code without really 
> requiring backwards compatibility (since in, e.g., a parse 
> transform, ASTs are transient and just have to be compatible 
> with the current compiler). But category #2 shows that old 
> abstract syntax trees may still turn up for some tools, and 
> have to be detected and/or handled (e.g., starting with 
> defining a new AST version). So I wouldn't say they are 
> basically the same problem.

But as long as people who keep debug info use those same
tools (e.g. cover, pretty-printer, etc.), those affected
are still the same compiler and tool writers who would be
affected no matter what. For example, the cover tool in
OTP can instrument code on the fly from the debug info,
but it can easily check the version number included
in the abstract_form chunk and act accordingly. As a
user of cover, you don't need to worry.

What I meant was that most people who make use of debug
info probably don't roll their own tools. You could 
of course be an exception to the rule. (:

Ulf W

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list