[erlang-questions] tuple modules, or Set:to_list() is official?

[Loïc Hoguin]

On 11/27/2012 09:34 AM, Motiejus Jakštys wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just wrote sets:to_list(SomeSet), and stopped for a second. So does
> this[1] really mean that these are equivalent, supported, and both right
> ways to do the same work?
>
>      set:to_list(SomeSet)
>      SomeSet:to_list()
>
> Is there an underlying message somewhere "if you can, you not
> necessarily should?"
>
> (I am aware that dialyzer will not understand me until R16, but this
> doesn't concern me now).
>
> Answer "go to hell" is also good. That way I will learn that some people
> do hate it and will, and I don't mind programming in subset of Erlang
> for the sake of common good (the same way I appreciate my colleagues
> keeping 80 character line limit just for me).

I still don't like it. It looks like you call a /0 function when it's in 
fact a /1.

How do you distinguish this?

SomeSet:to_list() %% SomeSet = set
SomeSet:to_list() %% SomeSet = {set, [stuff]}

It's fine until you mess up somewhere.

Another case, if you mistakenly save {ok, SomeSet} to some variable, you 
end up calling the module ok with a function of arity different of what 
you intended. That'll do wonder for error messages readability.

This syntax makes no sense.

-- 
Loïc Hoguin
Erlang Cowboy
Nine Nines
http://ninenines.eu