[erlang-questions] Improve $handle_undefined_function
Tue Jan 22 17:05:21 CET 2013
You missed the humor.
No one forces me, or anyone else, to use it. Indeed we can recommend
people not use it and tell people to avoid using libraries that are
using it, and if they still do tell them to *really* be careful about
it. All this not because we think the *feature* is bad, but because the
*implementation* can easily lead to user error.
On 01/22/2013 04:39 PM, Tony Rogvall wrote:
> Regardless of -extends() should be dropped or not I think
> $handle_undefined_function is a great addition
> to the runtime system. It allows for various experiments and hacks. No
> one forces you or any other one to
> use it. So please just look in an other direction for a while. Screaming
> in terror? Stop being such a wimp.
>> This statement alone makes me go back to thinking -extends() should be
>> dropped, and if not, $handle_undefined_function shouldn't be used and
>> should be dropped; it's incompatible with tools, prone to user error,
>> and is going to make half the community scream in terror.
>> As Jose Valim said right after you, the parse transform can simply
>> look at the original module directly. If it can't, then there's no
>> fixing it.
>> Loïc Hoguin
>> Erlang Cowboy
>> Nine Nines
>> erlang-questions mailing list
> "Installing applications can lead to corruption over time. Applications
> gradually write over each other's libraries, partial upgrades occur,
> user and system errors happen, and minute changes may be unnoticeable
> and difficult to fix"
More information about the erlang-questions