[erlang-questions] clarify: variable as function name

Christian S <>
Mon Dec 10 12:37:21 CET 2007


On Dec 10, 2007 12:21 PM, Anthony Kong <> wrote:
> It is because if you simply put 'f' there, it is considered an atom, not a
> function. Hence the 'badfun'.

Thus, it seems like Lovei has found an inconsistency with
documentation/implementation. I believe we want to move away from
the implicit assumption that an atom is the name of a function.
Similarity with the old Call = {M, F}, Call(Args...) which is to be
superseeded
by Call = fun M:F/Arity, Call(Args...) in all new code (and old code
too, if you have time :).



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list