Longstanding issues: structs & standalone Erlang
Thu Mar 2 09:04:09 CET 2006
My personal opinion is that by modules is better, because I handle a module
at a time. It would also be easier to provide a small rules file per module
(maybe even embedded in the source code?)
But the rules could be viewed in a viewer that could show them in any
grouping and sorting order.
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Bengt Kleberg
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 7:58 AM
> Subject: Re: Longstanding issues: structs & standalone Erlang
> On 2006-02-23 09:14, Vlad Dumitrescu XX (LN/EAB) wrote:
> > I found an interesting tool for Java, called Macker
> > (http://innig.net/macker/), that I think would be nice to
> translate to
> > any language. The idea is to define the architecture in a
> file and let
> > the tool check if the code is structured accordingly or
> not, spitting
> > out errors and warnings.
> do you think it is ''better'' to have the rules arranged
> after allow/deny at the top level, or after modules at the top?
More information about the erlang-questions