[erlang-questions] list_to_pid() surprise

Ulf Wiger <>
Sat Feb 28 17:20:40 CET 2009

Per Hedeland <> wrote:
> The main difference is that the binary has the
> node name instead of the
> I guess it isn't possible to fake up even a semi-valid pid
> without the node name

I'd agree, if the node index part of the pid hadn't already been mapped to a node name. But that's not the case here, unless pids created from binary_to_term() are represented in a different way from other pids. I might check the sources myself, by I don't have them on my mobile...

Anyway, like I said before, this wasn't a major problem. Perhaps we've spent enough energy on it now. (:

Ulf W

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list