[erlang-questions] process dictionary, anyone?

Robert Virding <>
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?

Robert

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 :)
> 
> James
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> 
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> 



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list