[erlang-questions] Why do we need modules at all?
Wed May 25 10:40:46 CEST 2011
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Vance Shipley <> wrote:
> I love the idea of ditching modules files and storing functions
> in a data store. What I'm picturing though is that the functions
> are stored in their abstract syntax form (i.e. data) so that the
> issue of formatting standards is stripped away. You need tools
> which translate it in and out so that we can continue to use the
> editors we are familiar with but you can edit in emacs using it's
> bizarre indentation and I can use vim and indent with tabs. ROK
> can put seperators at the begging of lines, I'll see them at the
> I have long wanted to put a toolchain together which allowed me
> to easily store abstract syntax in the source code control system
> repository. The check in and check out processes would convert
> (pretty print) it to my personal prefernce settings.
> The problem with that plan seems to be with the preprocessor. It
> seems to me though that your plan suffers the same problem. If
> macros are defined at a module level, or in an include file, you'll
> have to deal with them when you pull the functions out of the module
> and stuff it into the data store. The extended syntax tree used in
> the erl_syntax application might be the answer.
> How do you deal with record definitions?
YES :-) - compile their hash into the function?
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:08:40PM +0200, Joe Armstrong wrote:
> } Silly design question: if multiple people can edit (say) a wiki
> } of functions what formatting standards should be enforced?
> } - the last person who edited the text
> } - some "moderator" (who)
> } - by a pretty printer
> } (is there a *really good* pp? - with color syntax marking)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions