[erlang-questions] Frames proposal

Steve Davis <>
Sat Dec 29 15:05:22 CET 2012


Ah yes... it also leaves the flexibility in place for frame/map processing without *having* to specify it being of a particular named type. 

That would work great.

....R16 anyone?

best,
/s

On Dec 29, 2012, at 7:51 AM, Joe Armstrong <> wrote:
> 
> would be (with maps) (using the key 'type' to name the record)
> 
> foo(#{type=record}=R) -> ...
> foo(#{type=another_record}=R) -> ...




More information about the erlang-questions mailing list