[erlang-questions] lists:reverse/1 as a built-in function

Thomas Lindgren <>
Fri Jan 12 14:22:49 CET 2007


--- Robert Virding <> wrote:
> So with this in mind it is not really strange that
> BIFs are 
> auto-imported, and have priority over "normal"
> functions defined in 
> modules; they are part of the language. It is
> perhaps unfortunate that 
> we allowed definition of functions with the same
> name and arity as the 
> auto-imported ones.

It might have seemed like a good design choice at the
time, but note that auto-import (with "override") has
several unfortunate ramifications, which is why it
should be aged out. As Richard mentioned, one such
consequence is the difficulty in extending the set of
BIFs.

Standardizing the set of functions implemented in C
doesn't sound like a viable long term solution (nor
does standardizing the set of overridden functions).
Disallowing functions with the same names as builtins
doesn't sound like a very good design choice either.
Do note that there already is a simple,
straightforward option that does the right thing.

Best,
Thomas



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time 
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list