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

[Joe Armstrong]

That's really nice, sometime, almost as a joke I've written code like this

in_degree_of(G, in, V) ->
     ...

But I think your syntax is nicer - it's also reallly easy to implement
- worth experimenting with I think

/Joe


On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 4:47 AM, Richard O'Keefe <ok@REDACTED> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>