[erlang-questions] Dynamically access record fields
Tue Feb 12 02:06:56 CET 2013
"Loïc Hoguin" <essen@REDACTED> wrote
> - Micro optimization. Most applications wouldn't care for it either
Applications cannot care or not care for anything.
If people are willing to pay the price, fine;
my problem was that I saw no evidence that any proponent
realised that there _was_ a price "I just don't see the harm".
> - That's a developer's choice
Making code less readable may be a developer's _choice_,
but if anyone else might be required to read the code,
it isn't a developer's _right_.
> - BS, you have the same issue with Var = #rec.field, no difference there
Reducing the effectiveness of type checking?
Yes, we do have the same issue with Var = #rec.field,
BUT I don't say that using that is a good idea either.
> - See previous point
Inadvertently providing wider access? No, this one is
quite different from #rec.field. You can only use
#rec.field within the compile-time scope of a -record
declaration for 'rec'. If #rec.Field were allowed,
Field could be created at a point where the record
declaration was _not_ visible. #rec.field has to be
inside the module; use of it is not inadvertent; and
you can _find_ it trivially with a text editor, so
you can very easily check which fields might be accessed
that way. As far as I can see, that's not true of
#rec.Field, where Field comes from some unknown arbitrary
The key point is that we just plain DON'T NEED #rec.Field;
anything we could do with it can be done without it more
clearly using existing mechanisms, with better control over
access and all sorts of other programmer-liked goodness.
Erlang needs dynamic field access like oysters need shooting-sticks.
More information about the erlang-questions