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

Richard Carlsson <>
Thu Oct 18 20:42:52 CEST 2012


On 2012-10-18 18:18 , Loïc Hoguin wrote:
> I think a proper implementation would be great, I am especially
> intrigued by functors which from what I understand would be made
> possible with a proper pmod implementation.

When I say "proper implementation", I simply mean a separate opaque 
datatype (much like funs) for module instances, and support throughout 
the ecosystem for tracing and debugging. Apart from that, I think the 
existing syntax and semantics of parameterized modules is not lacking 
anything (beyond some simple additions like static-declared functions). 
Could you be more exact with what you refer to by "functors", because 
that's a quite fuzzy concept. ML functors, for example, are very static 
in nature and are more akin to C++ templates in the way they are 
expanded at compile time. I certainly don't think that is desirable in a 
language like Erlang.

     /Richard




More information about the erlang-questions mailing list