[erlang-questions] lists:reverse/1 as a built-in function
Richard A. O'Keefe
Thu Jan 25 03:37:21 CET 2007
From Thu Jan 25 02:17:02 2007
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:11:10 +0100
To: "Erlang list" <>
Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] lists:reverse/1 as a built-in function
List-Id: Erlang/OTP discussions <erlang-questions.erlang.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-PMX-Version: 220.127.116.119146, Antispam-Engine: 18.104.22.1683055, Antispam-Data: 2007.1.24.50433
X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIII, Probability=7%, Report='__CD 0, __CP_URI_IN_BODY 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CTYPE_CHARSET_QUOTED 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0'
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jan 2007 13:17:01.0866 (UTC) FILETIME=[EF3DE8A0:01C73FB9]
On 1/24/07, Erlang list <> wrote:
> What about also adding in module aliases at the same time? If you had
> -alias(mypkg, erlang). as a way of saying that mypkg:* is an alias
> for erlang:* you might help or avoid a lot of migration issues.
> Alternatively, you could have compiler switches instead.
"Christian S" <> replied:
This would break existing semantics. I think it would be worth it
though (if accompanied by Richard O'Keefe's reified environments idea
Just a quick reminder: my "reified environments idea" says that the
world contains modules and environments. Each module lives in some
specific environment, and module/environment names that the module uses
are interpreted in that environment. An environment contains mappings for
names (exactly like a file system directory) and some names are mapped to
modules (like files) and some are mapped to environments (like directories).
One of the main points is that you should be able to have a group of
modules sharing an environment (more or less an application) and then you
should be able to name one of those modules in another environment (the
"facade" or "entry" module), and the two names don't have to be the same.
I didn't think about multiple names for the same module in the same
environment, but it's just like hard links in UNIX, so why not?
More information about the erlang-questions