On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Kostis Sagonas <> wrote: > > But, out of curiosity, is there really a need to have both binary_part/2 > and binary_part/3 as BIFs in the language? > I'm sure I'm the wrong person to answer this, but for me, I don't have a need for both. I changed over to binary_part/2 earlier, and that works just fine. Dan