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

Richard Carlsson <>
Wed Oct 17 00:29:40 CEST 2012

On 2012-10-17 00:09 , Robert Virding wrote:
> I agree. Do it properly or get rid of it.

On second thought, there is one advantage to documenting this 
representation: there can be no doubt that when you make a call through 
a tuple {m,...}:f(...), you'll call the latest version of the module. We 
had originally planned to make pmods an opaque datatype, like funs, but 
unlike funs we didn't want to be bound to the module version used to 
create the instance. Keeping the representation open should make it 
clear what it is you're getting. But then don't remove the language 
support - make it work throughout the toolchain instead.


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list