[erlang-questions] (Non)Parametrized modules, inheritance, and R15B02 issues?

Ulf Wiger <>
Fri Oct 12 19:46:40 CEST 2012


Oh, well… :)

OTOH, Björn Gustavsson himself said earlier (8 Oct):

> Are you sure? What I have understood from previous email
> messages on this list is that many projects use "tuple modules"
> (which is an implementation detail in parameterized modules)
> and not parameterized modules directly. See for instance:
> 
> http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2012-January/063915.html
> 
> We are thinking about removing the compiler support for parameterized
> modules, but keeping the low-level mechanism in erlang:apply/3 and
> the inheritance hack in the error_handler module.

Just for fun, FWIW, I wrote a little parse transform that gives
roughly the same functionality as parameterized modules,
but without relying on the special syntax.

https://github.com/uwiger/parse_trans/commit/ae7163f3dbc2d3cbf23fb9a796b7f2e576dab09a

Note how it's in parse_trans/examples/, so it's mainly for fun.
It does seem to work, though.

BR,
Ulf W

On 12 Oct 2012, at 19:35, Yurii Rashkovskii wrote:

> From what I learned earlier this year, tuple modules have a bleak future as well:
> 
> ===
> 
> [1] > But I was wondering if there's any word out about the fate of tuple
> > modules? The ones like {erlang}:element(1). Are they expected to be
> > kept around? (I certainly hope they are :)
> >
> 
> No, we don't expect to keep them.
> 
> […]
> 
> /Björn

Ulf Wiger, Co-founder & Developer Advocate, Feuerlabs Inc.
http://feuerlabs.com



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20121012/762e2b1f/attachment.html>


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list