[erlang-questions] process dictionary, anyone?

Mats Cronqvist <>
Tue Apr 24 09:33:06 CEST 2007


Robert Virding 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. 

   so erlang is functional, except for the process dictionary, messages, ports 
and ets? then perhaps it's time to stop pretending it's functional?

   mats



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list