[erlang-questions] suggestion: shorthand functions
Fri Jan 11 10:12:40 CET 2013
Since I've been writing a bunch of rebar.config.script code lately,
I've suffered the agony of trying to write concise and readable
code without having to do tons of copy-paste, weird unwrapping
What I think would make this sort of thing easier, and also
escript programming in general, is if OTP could provide some
modules with concise naming and let-it-fail semantics.
Just off the top of my head, I scribbled down a few functions that
I think would make *my* life easier. I pushed them to github to
get some discussion going.
The modules are:
f.erl - shorthand functions for file.erl
fn.erl - ditto for filename.erl
e.erl - ditto for erl_eval.erl
The least beneficial is perhaps filename:erl, but my fingers and
eyes ache from all the filename:join(filename:dirname(F), …)
Otherwise, I think the biggest benefit is to stick to let-it-crash
programming, which I find is usually the default when I write
scripts. The original functions are always available if you want
to take a closer look at return values.
(For the file:script() counterparts, I also always pass the name
of the script as a binding).
Ulf Wiger, Co-founder & Developer Advocate, Feuerlabs Inc.
More information about the erlang-questions