[erlang-questions] question about Variable:fun()

[Tim Watson]

>
> The V call looks like a fake parameterized module.  They should
> be documented, perhaps as an experimental extension, however the
> specific usage with an explicit tuple doesn't look quite kosher.
> _______________________________________________

Parameterised modules do exist, but are an undocumented feature that
could be removed at any time - indeed many people on this list have
called for their removal, thought others would like them to stay. I
tend to use them only when interacting with an API that requires them,
opting instead to use a process (such as a gen_server) to encapsulate
state.

As previous answers mentioned, the general form M:func() will work
whenever M evaluates to a module - an atom in most cases but for
parameterized modules, a tuple where the first element is the name of
the parameterised module and the remaining places contain its state.
The example you've given is not a parameterised module per se, as it's
module annotation doesn't contain a second element defining state
variables in a list. e.g.,

-module(abc, [Var1, Var2, Etc]).

But I suppose (from your example) that the use of parameterised
modules at the call site is dealt with independently from their
definitions, at least as far as the compiler is concerned.