[erlang-questions] What is wrong with this list?
Wed Sep 5 05:45:20 CEST 2007
On Sep 4, 2007, at 19:10, David Hopwood wrote:
> In cases where this is a bug, it probably *is* often useful to know
> the two values (Pid and other_function() in the second match) are. For
> process ids, it is less useful than for other values, but you can
> use them to identify both processes in a debugger. At least this
> information can't hurt.
>> You have the same issue in a case, receive, function definition,
>> etc... for which you have no matching case. You don't want to list
>> every possible pattern.
> That's not a reason not to display the pattern in cases where there
> only be one.
I suppose I don't disagree with you enough to continue arguing.
Things can certainly be better, but I don't see how you'd get both
sides of the match without breaking compatibility.
More information about the erlang-questions