[erlang-questions] Overriding built-in functions in a module
Fri Jun 4 11:43:39 CEST 2010
Richard O'Keefe writes:
> We need the following things:
> (1) If a function f/n is defined in a module,
> then any calls to f/n without a module prefix
> refer to THAT definition.
> (2) The warning message for a definition of such
> a function should not say that it is defining
> a BIF but that it is defining a function with
> the same NAME as a BIF, e.g.,
> ./foo.erl:6: Warning: there is a BIF called spawn/1;
> to use the BIF you will need an erlang: prefix.
> (3) Such warnings are useful, but sometimes it is
> intentional, so a directive such as
> would be useful to silence the warning while giving
> human readers (and the compiler!) adequate notice.
> (Amongst other things, in a code review, it is easier
> to grep for -private than to gather compiler warnings.)
> I'm sure I've seen a proposal like this before, so I haven't written
> up an EEP for it yet.
FWIW, I agree with all 3 points. It would bring Erlang one step
closer to a saner set of scoping rules. Having auto-imports
override local definitions is just plain wrong.
More information about the erlang-questions