[erlang-questions] Pmods, packages, Unicode source code and column numbers in compiler - what will happen in R16?

Robert Virding <>
Wed Oct 17 00:09:06 CEST 2012


I agree. Do it properly or get rid of it.

Robert

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Carlsson" <>
> To: 
> Sent: Tuesday, 16 October, 2012 11:45:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] Pmods, packages, Unicode source code and column numbers in compiler - what will
> happen in R16?
> 
> On 2012-10-16 23:29 , Robert Virding wrote:
> > Doesn't this mean that now the syntax for parametrised modules is
> > still there but becomes meaningless? Or rather it will mean
> > whatever
> > the writer of a module chooses it to mean. That really won't
> > encourage clarity. Or what am I missing?
> 
> It also seems ass-backwards to me that the syntax will be dropped,
> but
> the hack that we used for the proof-of-concept implementation will be
> immortalized as "tuple modules". Drop the parameterized modules if
> you
> like, but don't make the apply-hack a documented feature; the old
> {M,F}
> was bad enough.
> 
>      /Richard
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> 
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> 



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list