[erlang-questions] Somebody please correct my -callback understanding
Wed Dec 14 20:00:20 CET 2011
Dnia śro, 14 gru 2011, 19:52:17 Damian Dobroczyński pisze:
> Dnia śro, 14 gru 2011, 19:38:33 Daniel Luna pisze:
>> 2011/12/14 Damian Dobroczyński <qoocku@REDACTED>:
>>> Wow, It's a miracle! I've just found the answer and (what I understand)
>>> a bug. IT IS "-behavior (...)" which is perfectly understood by the
>>> compiler but not by by the dialyzer! Dialyzer expects "-behaviour (...)"
>>> (note the different spelling).
>> This is not a bug. Erlang has always used 'behaviour' (and
>> 'behaviour_info'). See
>> As a side note, Erlang allows for any user defined elements starting with -.
>> If you for example add the following line to your code
>> then this is fully legal Erlang, and its effect is seen if you run
> From Erlang Reference Manual:
> The atom Behaviour gives the name of the behaviour, which can be a user
> defined behaviour or one of the OTP standard behaviours gen_server,
> gen_fsm, gen_event or supervisor.
> The spelling behavior is also accepted."""" <--- HERE
> It's a bug. Besides as I mentioned, the compiler perfectly understand
> the attribute "-behavior" giving me warnings about missing callbacks.
> So, compiler understand and behave correctly with "-behavior" -
> dialyzer don't.
> (Unfortunately (or maybe not) my code if full of "behaviors" ;) just
> because it is accepted and understood not even deprecated).
> -- D.
I've just looked into "Erlang. Programming" by Cesarini & Thompson
(2009), page 271, an example of gen_server (usr.el listining):
Well, thats enough for me to be completely comvinced it's not a weird
thing to write "-behavior (...)". I think it's in common, especially
More information about the erlang-questions