[erlang-questions] Capability model?

Richard A. O'Keefe <>
Thu Oct 26 07:04:22 CEST 2006

One of the first proposals I ever made for Erlang was a
MODULE-PRIVATE naming system for processes.  The idea was
that the declaration
would set up Name as a module-private (unexported and unexportable)
single-process "registry".  At that time, virtually all the uses of
the process registry that I could find *should* have been module-private
and presumably would have been if there had been any kind of module-
private registry to use.

As far as I can see, if we're going to change anything about processes,
names should go.  We don't require numbers to have names; we don't any
longer require functions to have names; why require processes to have

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list