[erlang-questions] Why isn't erlang strongly typed?

Richard O'Keefe <>
Wed Oct 22 04:47:02 CEST 2008


>
> This is a consequence of Erlangs incredibly unergonomic function/ 
> parameter
> naming conventions and has little to do with strong typing (or its
> absence).

I have proposed in the past that Erlang should adopt
Paul Lyons' "split procedure names" idea.

Instead of

	call = [module:]name([expr{,expr}])

we take

	call = [module:]{name([expr{,expr}])}+

For example, instead of

	in_degree(G, V)

you would have

	in_degree_of(V) in(G)

My experience of Smalltalk is the same as Holger Hoffstaette's;
the names tell you what the argument rôles are so that it is
very unusual to get arguments confused.




More information about the erlang-questions mailing list