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

Loïc Hoguin <>
Thu Oct 18 20:57:24 CEST 2012

On 10/18/2012 08:42 PM, Richard Carlsson wrote:
> 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).

Opaque, no discrepencies between function arities, etc. Fred listed 
quite well the issues, although the two I just cited are my bigger concerns.

I believe we are on the same tracks there.

> 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.

I'll have to get back to you on that after I get re-explained how it 
would work, it's been a while and things have gotten vague about it, 
only the good feeling remained. :)

Loïc Hoguin
Erlang Cowboy
Nine Nines

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list