[erlang-questions] Did Erlang's grammar change in R16A?
Thu Feb 14 23:49:19 CET 2013
2013/2/14 Loïc Hoguin <>
> On 02/14/2013 11:42 PM, Björn-Egil Dahlberg wrote:
>> 2013/2/14 Loïc Hoguin < <mailto:>>
>> 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. :)
Yeah .. kinda stuck with dynamically created atoms now. But using atoms as
strings .. thats just a poor life choice.
// Björn-Egil .. needs .. sleep .. now
> Loïc Hoguin
> Erlang Cowboy
> Nine Nines
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions