[erlang-questions] [ANN] SeqBind, Sequential Binding Parse Transformation for Erlang (Experimental)

[Tim Watson]

On 16 January 2012 18:37, Tim Fletcher <mail@REDACTED> wrote:

> > Also, accessors return the state because Cowboy doesn't try to parse or
> > read anything from the socket if it doesn't have to. That means body,
> > query string, cookies and so on aren't parsed until you need them,
> > saving resources in the process at the expense of a few more characters
> > to write.
>
> I see, but it's not *just* the extra characters, there's the mental
> overhead of having to remember to thread the state through, and
> there's the added complexity of the lazy parsing/reading which could
> be harder to debug. Whether that's a good trade-off for performance I
> don't know, but IMO it's not an API that would be easy to use.
>
>
This conversation reminds me of the erlando parse_transform and its
do-notation:
http://www.erlang-factory.com/upload/presentations/435/MatthewSackman.pdf.
That, in turn, reminds me of several enormous threads about how the syntax
could/should change or be improved upon. There are also one or two
outstanding EEPs regarding this issue.

Personally I find pulling things out into an Explaining Function removes a
lot of the tedium, at least for the reader, if not the author of the code.
Like Joel, I'm a bit of a fanatical in-liner, but I also know people who
*swear* by having an Explaining Variable for ever last bit of intermediate
state.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20120116/783165d4/attachment.htm>