[erlang-questions] Did Erlang's grammar change in R16A?
Thu Feb 14 23:44:50 CET 2013
On 02/14/2013 11:42 PM, Björn-Egil Dahlberg wrote:
> 2013/2/14 Loïc Hoguin <essen@REDACTED <mailto:essen@REDACTED>>
> On 02/14/2013 11:18 PM, Björn-Egil Dahlberg wrote:
> * Creating atoms in runtime. It should only have been allowed in
> and never by list_to_atom/1 or binary_to_atom/1,2
> (binary_to_term would
> still be a thing though)
> Anthony Ramine has a "split the atoms" implementation of ROK's EEP
> in progress which allows to dynamically create garbage-collected
> atoms, fixing all issues related to creating them at runtime. You
> might want to take a look or help getting this in quicker:
> My point was actually not to have atoms as strings (and prolog filenames).
> If I'm reading the EEP correctly: a local atom would actually require a
> larger heap space than an equivalent heap binary .. which is a feat all
> by itself.
> I gather that could be remedied though. Haven't looked at the code.
> I agree that atom gc is needed but it shouldn't be an excuse for using
> dynamic atoms instead of binaries. Besides, if locals atoms are larger
> than binaries why would you use atoms. (I might be wrong about the size
> though .. didn't look that hard).
Some things still only take atoms, like register/2. That's just one
example out of many. :)
More information about the erlang-questions