Fri May 10 15:35:39 CEST 2013
Also, to anyone interested in the specifics of what frames actually are, I
think the most recent/best resource for understanding them is here:
A lot of time has gone into refining this proposal - check it out!
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Tom Murphy <amindfv@REDACTED> wrote:
> 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).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions