[erlang-questions] Hungarian notation for Erlang / ETL
Sun Oct 5 11:58:34 CEST 2008
Nick Gerakines blogging about need for "Standard Collection behaviour" in
> 1. I also hate Hungarian notation and doesn't use it even in C++ (except
> m_ prefix), but I still need a solution for current version of Elrang
> (does it mean that I need always use Dyalizer?).
> 2. I wasn't talking about implementing object using Erlang processes. I
> talking about much simpler and functional solution, like providing
> behaviour, like:
> behaviour_info(callbacks) ->
> %% etc...
> behaviour_info(_Other) ->
> then each ADT will implement this bahaviour, like:
> %% ...
> %% ...
> %% ...
> David Holz wrote:
>>> Is there some kind of Hungarian notation for Erlang? i.e. prefix or
>>> naming convention.
>> Hungarian notation is the absolute wrong solution to type confusion (or
>> any other problem). The new type annotations will eventually provide
>> optional type information available to both the compiler and IDEs for
>> keeping things straight. It won't be long before it's an official part
>> of the release; the annotation handling is in there already, just not
>> I would, though, also like to see some sort of actual OO-ish interface to
>> a block of data that can dispatch to the proper behavior for that
>> specific data term. Java's collections and IO streams, while verbose,
>> are incredibly usable implementations of that idea at their core. With
>> Erlang, however, it might mean that your data item is held by its own
>> process, with a well-defined messaging interface, and might want some
>> sort of automatic deferring to a parent process/module for unhandled
>> calls or messages in the receive loop.
>> Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live.
>> erlang-questions mailing list
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Hungarian-notation-for-Erlang---ETL-tp14701912p19822958.html
Sent from the Erlang Questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
More information about the erlang-questions