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

Tuncer Ayaz <>
Wed Oct 17 17:21:25 CEST 2012


On 2012-10-17 Robert Virding wrote:

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

For what it's worth I second Richard's and Robert's opinion to 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.



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list