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

Noah Diewald <>
Fri Oct 12 22:34:06 CEST 2012


There seems to be some problems with the RSS feed. It doesn't work in my
favorite programs:

http://feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http://www.erlang.org/rss/news

On 10/12/2012 02:36 PM, Kenneth Lundin wrote:
> End of speculation, we have made a number of decisions for the upcoming
> R16B ( end of February). We will describe this in more detail on this
> list and on erlang.org <http://erlang.org>
> next week. Parameterized modules is part of this decision,  and there is
> no need to worry. The code using them today will continue to work.
> 
> But as said more details will come soon.
> 
> /Kenneth, Erlang/OTP Ericsson
> 
> ---------- Vidarebefordrat meddelande ----------
> Från: "Ulf Wiger" < <mailto:>>
> Datum: 12 okt 2012 19:46
> Ämne: Re: [erlang-questions] (Non)Parametrized modules, inheritance, and
> R15B02 issues?
> Till: "Yurii Rashkovskii" < <mailto:>>
> Kopia: "Tomas Morstein" < <mailto:>>,
> <
> <mailto:>>,
> " <mailto:>"
> < <mailto:>>
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
>  <mailto:>
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> 
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20121012/d61ac29c/attachment.bin>


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list