[erlang-questions] Bug ?!
Richard A. O'Keefe
ok@REDACTED
Thu Oct 5 02:30:19 CEST 2006
Richard O'Keefe | Richard Carlsson | Pattern
proposed | counter-proposed | meaning
----------------+------------------+--------
[*] | [..] | a list of any size, including 0 or 1.
{*} | {..} | a tuple of any size, including 0 or 1.
<<*>> | <<..>> | a binary of any size, including 0 or 1.
#r{*} | | any instance of record type r
| #r{} | existing syntax for the same thing
I was about to make an argument about #r{*} versus #r{}, but on reflection
lists, tuples, and binaries are sequences, and records aren't. So maybe
it is a good thing for them to look different.
The first column gets by with no new tokens.
The second column requires a new "short ellipsis" token.
Darn it, the second column does look better.
It's just that I have painful memories of ",.." in DEC-10 Prolog.
More information about the erlang-questions
mailing list