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

Yurii Rashkovskii <>
Sat Oct 13 08:28:30 CEST 2012


Sounds great! Hope tuple modules are also part of this decision :) Anyway — 
a final resolution is a nice thing to have :)

On Friday, October 12, 2012 12:36:55 PM UTC-7, 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
> 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" < <javascript:>>
> Datum: 12 okt 2012 19:46
> Ämne: Re: [erlang-questions] (Non)Parametrized modules, inheritance, and 
> R15B02 issues?
> Till: "Yurii Rashkovskii" < <javascript:>>
> Kopia: "Tomas Morstein" < <javascript:>>, <
>  <javascript:>>, "<javascript:>" 
> < <javascript:>>
>
>
> 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
>  <javascript:>
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20121012/871cc51b/attachment.html>


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list