Erlang standard library quirks

Eric Merritt <>
Tue Jan 31 19:55:41 CET 2006


I might be interested as well, though my time is somewhat limited.

  I have no problem with packages as long as the are debuggable. I
have been under the impression that the debugger and packages didn't
get along very well. If this is still the case (and I haven't checked
in a while) then packages are probably not that useful from a
practical standpoint.

On 1/31/06, Richard Carlsson <> wrote:
> Dominic Williams wrote:
> > I might be interested (I care a lot about good, consistent naming and
> > very much prefer the error handling approach you outlined)... the
> > only problem is that I am completely opposed to the use of packages.
>
> I know many people don't like to use packages. However, it's hard to
> add new standard modules without causing collisions with existing
> code out there. Unless, of course, all the new modules are given
> some (short) pseudo-unique prefix. Personally, I think prefixes are
> rather ugly, but I also don't want to force anyone to use packages.
> But we could have both - each function could have a package version
> as well as a flat-namespace-with-prefixes version. It would be easy
> to generate one given the other.
>
>         /Richard
>
> --
>  "Having users is like optimization: the wise course is to delay it."
>    -- Paul Graham
>



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list