[erlang-questions] Typed records and erl_parse

[Thomas Lindgren]

--- "Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)" <ulf.wiger@REDACTED>
wrote:

> 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.

Right, so one category of tools will have to add
backwards compatibility code after all. Since the
number of erlang toolmakers is, ahem, fairly low, I
guess that cost of not-quite discontinuing the old
record attribute will primarily be felt by OTP.

> 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. (:

Well, Tobias asked the people who _do_ work with ASTs,
after all :-)

I'm mostly in category #1, but one of my tools
actually does use debug_info and store ASTs in a
database. (The OM profile-based optimizer.) Happily,
backward compatibility is not in itself a huge concern
for that project.

Best,
Thomas



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com