[erlang-questions] Fwd: Suggestion: New Info item for process_info/2

[Kenneth Lundin]

Hi,

I have been reading this topic without making a reply simply because I don't
understand why you want to a program fetching process_info attributes which
the program don't know the meaning of.

Another fact that has relevance is that the list of available
process_info attributes
tend to be quite stable. It is very very rare that something is
removed and it does not happen too often that an attribut is added.

It is of course easy to add a function which can return a list of
the available process_info attributes, If it is important enough and i
am not convinced at all.

/Regards Kenneth Erlang/OTP Ericsson

On 5/16/08, Bengt Kleberg <bengt.kleberg@REDACTED> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> There is probably a reason for process_info/1 being restricted to
> debugging (it might not be possible to interrupt and takes too much
> time?). Adding 'all' to process_info/2 should turn it into
> process_info/1 (or a super set of it) and make it as ''bad''.
> What you probably want is process_info_available/0 which returns a list
> of atoms.
>
>
> bengt
>
> On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 13:13 -0400, Edwin Fine wrote:
> > LOL. I probably deserved that. Thanks for the replies - SOMEONE is out
> > there!
> >
> > Matt, the solution is workable, and I avoid pain as much as the next
> > guy, but I really want to have something that will TELL me what all
> > the valid process_info items are. process_info/1 only gives me SOME of
> > them and is for debugging only.
> >
> > Ok, then; here's a suggestion:
> >
> > Erlang team, How about adding an info item of "all" for
> > process_info/2? It won't break the interface, and it will allow people
> > like me to "query" process_info for which items are valid.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Edwin Fine
> >
> > On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:01 AM, Matthias Lang <matthias@REDACTED>
> > wrote:
> >         Edwin Fine writes:
> >
> >          > I don't know if my first post just didn't make it, or got
> >         ignored because I
> >          > inadvertently offended someone, or perhaps it asked too
> >         boring a
> >          > question.
> >
> >
> >         I thought "the guy's figured out a perfectly workable solution
> >         but is
> >         tying himself in knots to avoid using it because it doesn't
> >         seem
> >         painful enough." Either that, or he hasn't managed to explain
> >         what he
> >         really wants to do.
> >
> >         Matt
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > erlang-questions mailing list
> > erlang-questions@REDACTED
> > http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>