[erlang-questions] Frames proposal

[Anton Lavrik]

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Richard O'Keefe <ok@REDACTED> wrote:
>
> That is, we shouldn't copy Erlson syntax, BECAUSE Erlson IS ALREADY
> USING IT and we must not break Erlson.
>

I'm not sure if you are serious, but here's my comment to that anyway.

To me, the benefits of using Erlson syntax for a native implementation
of name-value dictionaries in Erlang outweigh the broken compatibility
with Erlson runtime data representation.

One of the reasons why I created Erlson was to prove that it is
possible to have a nice syntax for Erlang dictionaries that fits with
the language (*). While Erlson syntax is similar to records, it is
still different enough to avoid confusion and it is compatible with
the rest of Erlang's syntax.

So, for those who actually consider implementing a native dictionary
data type in Erlang and using Erlson syntax for that, please feel free
to break Erlson.

Anton

(*) I realize that this is a highly subjective statement, but it is no
worse than any of the purely theoretic arguments about syntax I read
in this thread. Language design is not a science, for better or worse.