[erlang-questions] Parametrized modules status

Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB) ulf.wiger@REDACTED
Thu Feb 8 11:36:17 CET 2007


> -----Original Message-----
> From: erlang-questions-bounces@REDACTED 
> [mailto:erlang-questions-bounces@REDACTED] On Behalf Of 
> Dominic Williams
> Sent: den 7 februari 2007 23:02
> To: Kirill Zaborski; erlang-questions@REDACTED
> Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] Parametrized modules status
> Kirill Zaborski a écrit :
> >  What is the current status of this feature? Does anyone use it?
> It's a chicken-or-egg dilemma. I have used parameterized 
> modules in personal projects. They work and I think they are 
> a great language feature. However, until they are fully 
> supported I am a bit reluctant to use them in professional projects.

Erlhive uses parameterized modules extensively in the background,
as well as the package syntax. From a user perspective, erlhive 
supports user-defined parameterized modules, but doesn't 
require them.

Worst case, I'd have to emulate parameterized modules internally
if they were to disappear from OTP. For Erlhive, this is not a
huge problem, since it does code transformation on all user-
provided code.

The same goes for the package syntax. Erlhive needs some 
namespace convention, and I didn't see the point in 
inventing my own. It's not a huge problem if OTP decides
to drop it, although I would much rather that they didn't. (:

Personally, I think parameterized modules are very nice
in some situations. I can imagine that they can be overused,
but that's the case with many other language constructs
too (apply/3 comes to mind as an example...)

Ulf W

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list