[erlang-questions] Why single-assignment with non-shared state?
Sat Oct 20 14:54:13 CEST 2007
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Ulf Wiger wrote:
> While single assignment and pattern matching go very well
> together, it's a little bit less obvious how mutable state and
> pattern matching would combine as nicely. Erlang's current
> semantics for binding and matching make it quite straight-
> forward to reason about even very complex programming
Doesn't shadowing of meanings of variables in Erlang similarly complicate reasoning? (in one
position some variable has some meaning and elsewhere in the term suddenly has different meaning).
Non-functional features of Erlang are present in its fundamental constructs:
- - send
- - receive
- - spawn
These cannot be modelled in (purely) functional languages, can they? How?
> Ulf W
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the erlang-questions