[erlang-questions] Maps

[Tom Murphy]

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 4:48 AM, Loïc Hoguin <essen@REDACTED> wrote:

> On 05/10/2013 05:03 AM, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
>
>>      Frames are optimised (pared to the bone, in fact) for use in
>>      record-like ways.  They are somewhere between pathetic and
>>      hopeless as general purpose dictionaries.
>>
>
> I think that's the bigger issue with frames. Are they worth spending the
> time implementing considering they are essentially a records replacement?
> Records work good enough for most purposes, with the exception of upgrades,
> which few people do anyway.
>

One of the things that's very compelling to me about frames as a record
replacement is that (as I understand it), frames are fully-distinguishable
as a separate data type.

The record abstraction is *very* leaky. Any Erlang coder who uses records
has to know about - and contend with - its underlying representation as a
tuple (insertion into ETS tables, for example, is something that's common
and trips people up when the first atom (the record tag) is used as the key
for the table).

Tom
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20130510/1651d45e/attachment.htm>