[erlang-questions] process dictionary, anyone?
Tue Apr 24 03:07:41 CEST 2007
Trouble is that it breaks the functional part of the language. Now that
is only really done in process dictionary, processes/message, ports and
ets. Though both ets and ports can be considered as processes/messages
and can be implemented as such though a bit less efficiently.
So globals variables in the process dictionary is not really a Good
Thing. Using them as settable constants would be perhaps ok. How about
having them as variables and only be set-once?
James Hague wrote:
> I think the process dictionary is unfairly maligned. Having
> per-process globals is a _good_ thing. It can make code simpler and
> more maintainable in specific situations. Now I'd just like some
> syntactic sugar to make them easier to use and to give the illusion of
> having dead simple hash table / dictionary support in Erlang :)
> erlang-questions mailing list
More information about the erlang-questions