[erlang-questions] Process declarations

Tony Finch <>
Wed Oct 25 14:45:16 CEST 2006


On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, Joe Armstrong wrote:

> Process declarations:
> Do away with spawn. Replace with a process keyword:
> So that we can name processes. Things without names we cannot talk about.

I think this is a bad idea because it's moving away from the capability
model, where posession of a pid implies permission to communicate with it,
and if you don't have the pid you can't. The pid *is* the name. Also, I'm
not sure how your proposal deals with multiple processes running the
annotated code.

Tony.
-- 
f.a.n.finch  <>  http://dotat.at/
HEBRIDES: NORTHEAST 5 OR 6 VEERING EAST 6 OR 7 PERHAPS GALE 8 LATER. SHOWERS
THEN RAIN. MODERATE OR GOOD.



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list