[erlang-questions] List to proplist?

[Martin Bjorklund]

Richard Carlsson <richardc@REDACTED> wrote:
> Hans Bolinder wrote:
> > [Richard O'Keefe:]
> >> A version of unfold that I prefer is
> >>
> >> unfold(State, Splitter) ->
> >>      unfold(State, Splitter, []).
> >>
> >> unfold(State, Splitter, Acc) ->
> >>      case Splitter(State)
> >>        of []            -> lists:reverse(Acc)
> >>         ; [Item|State1] -> unfold(State1, Splitter, [Item|Acc])
> >>      end.
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > lists:unfold/2 has been added to the upcoming R12B-5 release.
> 
> I was going to comment on this before, but didn't get around to it.
> Please don't use the return convention above; it is not normal
> Erlang programming style, and introduces an improper list for no
> really good reason.

+1.  I was just going to make the same comment.


/martin