[erlang-questions] interesting I/O bottleneck
Tue Jun 1 23:34:59 CEST 2010
I'm convinced that file:file_name shouldn't be that expensive. It's ugly,
yes, and I wish it was unnecessary, but it's not horribly inefficient. Maybe
because it's so heavily recursive (and not tail recursive) it's showing
skewed results in eprof?
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:17 AM, James Hague <> wrote:
> >Do you know if the input file names to the function contain
> >atoms or are deep?
> In my code the filenames are flat strings (no atoms, no nested lists). If
> I had known that filenames could be deep lists I would have taken advantage
> of that, but I'm not currently.
> Is there a reason that atoms are allowed in filenames? Why not just go with
More information about the erlang-questions