[erlang-questions] Intel Quad CPUs

[Bob Ippolito]

Probably because if they didn't look like function calls, then they'd
look like atoms...

On 9/6/07, Damien Morton <dmorton@REDACTED> wrote:
> Allow me to apologise in advance for my ignorance, but why do edoc type
> specifications look like function calls?
>
> On 9/6/2007 9:47 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> > That's what edoc type specifications look like...
> >
> > On 9/6/07, Damien Morton <dmorton@REDACTED> wrote:
> >
> >> Why does the integer type look like a function call?
> >>
> >> On 9/6/2007 5:16 PM, David Mercer wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thursday, September 06, 2007, Tony Finch wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> What is the reason for the trailing ()s? It would be nice if the syntax
> >>>> had less redundant visual noise.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> So it can tell the difference between an integer and the atom 'integer'?
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> David
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: erlang-questions-bounces@REDACTED
> >>> [mailto:erlang-questions-bounces@REDACTED] On Behalf Of
> >>> Sent: 14:00
> >>> To: Kostis Sagonas
> >>> Cc: Erlang
> >>> Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] Intel Quad CPUs
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Kostis Sagonas wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> In the new language you would write (or preferably change the above edoc
> >>>> comment to be):
> >>>>
> >>>> -spec(foo/2 :: ((integer(), float()) -> atom())).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> What is the reason for the trailing ()s? It would be nice if the syntax
> >>> had less redundant visual noise.
> >>>
> >>> Tony.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> erlang-questions mailing list
> >> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> >> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>