[erlang-questions] Improve $handle_undefined_function
Thu Jan 24 18:31:27 CET 2013
On 2013-01-24 18:12, Robert Virding wrote:
> Some of the stuff in our stdlib, like providing zero-index based
> access everywhere is hard to "backport" to Erlang. And other stuff
> like the Enum module, which is a bunch of functions meant to work
> on any enumerable data structure, like lists, dicts, etc, requires
> What is it with zero-based indexes that make people so morbidly
> fascinated by them. If you are talking *offsets* then I agree that
> zero-based is fine, it's saying how far away something is from a some
> point. But here we are talking *indexes*, you know like first, second,
> third, etc. No indexes start at one! And don' go on about how C does
> it because C doesn't have arrays and indexes it has pointers and
> offsets, foo is just syntactic sugar for *foo+3. And don't go on
> about how much easier it is to count from zero, I don't buy that, we
> can all add and subtract one without problems. Or at least I hope so.
> I think the OTP group made a bad decision *indexing* binaries from
> zero instead of one like the rest of erlang. It is both wrong and
> makes the system inconsistent.
I can see your point. I tend to think of indexing binaries as "indexing
char arrays" and everything else as "indexing erlang terms".
> So to go on about this but there are some sensible things you can
> criticize Erlang for and indexing from one is not one of them. (And
> not really the syntax either, and this comes from the creator of LFE)
IMHO: I think not having zero-based indexing in Erlang was a *big*
mistake. I can see where it comes from, but still .. it's a pain knowing
that I have to do +1/-1 to make certain algorithms function properly.
Btw, when you say "the OTP group made a bad decision", exactly who are
you referring too? Yourself? Isn't these decisions from CS-lab?
Certainly way before my time =)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions