[erlang-questions] Pmods, packages, Unicode source code and column numbers in compiler - what will happen in R16?
Fri Oct 19 14:04:14 CEST 2012
What is the point in the experiment if not to allow people use it?
I see pmods as a way to handle whole abstraction as one object in the language.
For example, in cowboy it is required to store socket and the appropriate protocol module. 2 objects that cannot work with some another protocol.
Other libraries create its own absractions to handle the socket as some abstract socket that encapsulates underlying protocol like lhttpc_sock, ejabberd_socket and I suppose a lot more.
And pmods might become a standard way to handle such cases.
On 19.10.2012, at 14:58, Robert Virding wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Devin Torres" <>
>> Sent: Thursday, 18 October, 2012 5:40:15 PM
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:45 AM, Loïc Hoguin <>
>>> Cowboy doesn't use undocumented features. That's one of the biggest
>>> claim. It protects both the project and its users from bad
>> Missing the point, but okay. The point is: not removing the feature
>> affects nobody different today. You can continue to ignore it forever
>> and it will never make a difference to your daily life. Removing the
>> feature adversely affects some.
>> Instead of removing features, why don't we let the OTP team focus on
>> adding features that will make the lives of everyday Erlang
>> programmers better? Like frames. :)
> If you don't remove unused/experimental features then your language will slowly accumulate crud and eventually become a right mess of "features". I haven't got quite as far as removing something every time you add something but close. I think the problem is that people seem to misunderstand the meaning of "experimental" and expect them to remain even if the experiment fails.
> erlang-questions mailing list
More information about the erlang-questions