Thu Oct 12 09:25:01 CEST 2006
This looks like a good idea to work further with.
There are some problems about it, however:
* the syntax issue, of course. I think that attempts to just use a
parse transform (as opposed to change the parser itself) won't provide
very readable results. Or as with the a.b.c.d suggestion, it will
clash with something else.
* since one is required to declare the types of record variables,
I'm not sure how easy it would be to use. Should the default value of
a record field serve as a type declaration? How to handle 'undefined'
values then? We would have to handle the equivalent of
Finally, as a personal wish, I would rather see an implementation of
Richard O'Keefe's abstract patterns proposal (see
It might need to be revised a little, since it is a few years old.
More information about the erlang-questions