[erlang-questions] [erlang-patches] add compiler checked atoms

[Kenneth Lundin]

Hi,

I don't think this is a good way to introduce declared atoms.

We already have the -type and -spec notation for definition of
types and function signatures which are then used by Dialyzer for type
checking.
I don't think we should introduce yet another notation that is not
harmonized with -type and -spec.
It is already possible to declare atoms in -type and -spec. Why not use
this already present notation and add
optional checking of atoms against declared atoms inside -type and -spec
instead.

With the suggested -atom declaration we will probably get the same atoms
declared 2 times with different notations and I think that
will clutter down the code with redundant information to an
unacceptable degree.

/Kenneth, Erlang/OTP Ericsson
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Richard Carlsson <
carlsson.richard@REDACTED> wrote:

> Sorry, pressed send too soon in the last attempt. Here is the code:
>
>  git fetch git@REDACTED:richcarl/otp.**git warn-unknown-atom
>
> Here is a suggested patch to the compiler, that I'm throwing out there as
> a request for comments. In any large code base, it can be hard to maintain
> atom hygiene - you may have hidden errors due to misspelled atoms, people
> may be adding atoms without much thought, and it can be hard to track which
> atoms are being used where and for what (e.g., atoms used for options,
> error indicators, message tags, callback module and function names, etc.
> This allows you to declare your atoms like so:
>
>  -atoms([foo, bar]).
>
> You can have any number of such declarations, and an atom may occur
> multiple times and/or in different declarations - it's the union of known
> atoms that matters. Note that this declaration is backwards compatible; the
> current compiler will accept it as a generic attribute with no particular
> meaning.
>
> If you specify the compiler option `warn_unused_atom' when compiling a
> module (you can put `-compile([warn_unused_atom]).**' in the module if
> you want to enable the checking in that module only), you will get a
> warning for each atom that has not been explicitly declared. The compiler
> knows about standard atoms such as `ok', `true', `false', `undefined' etc.,
> and it does not check function and module names in calls, or record names
> and fields of records, since these are checked in other ways already.
>
> I don't think this addition warrants an EEP, since it doesn't change the
> language as such; it only adds a backwards compatible feature to the
> compiler. However, I'd like to get some initial feedback before I bother to
> update the documentation and submit it as a full patch.
>
> git@REDACTED:richcarl/otp.**git
>
>   /Richard
> ______________________________**_________________
> erlang-patches mailing list
> erlang-patches@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/**listinfo/erlang-patches<http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-patches>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20120214/c2bb3d68/attachment.htm>