[erlang-questions] Misultin EOL

[Robert Virding]

I have seen behaviours used in this way. All the behaviour contained was the behaviour_info/1 function which just returned the functions' name/arity. It was created for just this purpose. But it is not how behaviours were intended. 

Robert 

----- Original Message -----

> I think a lot of issues with APIs would be solved if we had something
> analogous to Java interfaces in Erlang. Behaviors just don't cut it.
> I want something that is a replica of interfaces. Then all the
> Erlang guys have to do is create the interface and then people can
> create whatever implementations they want and I never have to worry
> about changing my code!

> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Tim Watson <
> watson.timothy@REDACTED > wrote:

> > On 17 February 2012 22:49, Jesse Gumm < gumm@REDACTED >
> > wrote:
> 

> > > I agree with you about the parameterised modules. I'm not a big
> > > fan
> > 
> 
> > > of them either (though seeing how it works, I do understand why
> > > Rusty
> > 
> 
> > > went that route), and the deprecation of the tuple modules had me
> > 
> 
> > > scared for a moment. After that happened, I've been starting to
> > > think
> > 
> 
> > > about a roadmap away from the parameterised modules with
> > 
> 
> > > simple_bridge.
> > 
> 

> > I think that's a good idea.
> 

> > I would also like to respectfully suggest that api implementations
> > might be distributed separately from the api itself, so that I can
> > choose to get simple_bridge and simple_bridge_mochiweb (or
> > whatever)
> > but ignore the other stuff. Just a suggestion you may wish to
> > consider.
> 

> > Cheers,
> 

> > Tim
> 
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20120218/45ced786/attachment.htm>