[erlang-questions] Frames proposal

Steve Davis <>
Sat Dec 29 13:42:05 CET 2012


fixed typo of missed "when" to avoid the distraction from my real question!

On Dec 29, 2012, at 6:39 AM, Steve Davis <> wrote:

> Looking at the age of the last entry in this thread, it seems that the discussion about frames has rather tailed off again. A pity.
> 
> I'd like to add support for both the introduction of frames (and for the EEP 20 on "splitting atoms"). They appear to me to solve fairly pressing issues.
> 
> Personally, I _strongly_ prefer the proposed "erlson form" of notation for frames above the suggested <{}> and ~.
> 
> I do have a question (re: section 8.2 "What we've lost...")... I frequently use pattern matching to constrain arguments to type, e.g.:
> 
> foo(R = #record{}) -> etc
> 
> In frames, are we limited to: 
> foo(F) when is_frame(F) -> etc
> ?
> 
> regs,
> /s




More information about the erlang-questions mailing list