[erlang-questions] process dictionary, anyone?

[Bob Ippolito]

Module scoped single assignment per-process variables doesn't sound
like a terrible idea... but I have no idea what I'd use them for :) I
think most uses of the process dictionary are probably not single
assignment.

-bob

On 4/23/07, Robert Virding <robert.virding@REDACTED> wrote:
> 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
> > erlang-questions@REDACTED
> > http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> >
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>