[erlang-questions] compile: making asm and core official

[Tuncer Ayaz]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Tuncer Ayaz <tuncer.ayaz@REDACTED> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Tuncer Ayaz <tuncer.ayaz@REDACTED> wrote:
>> Motivated by a discussion at https://github.com/rebar/rebar/issues/105
>> and Bjorn-Egil's suggestion, I'd like to ask for opinions on
>> officially supporting 'core' and 'asm' as compile:file/2 options.
>>
>> (1) How likely are you to accept patches which would:
>>
>> * Implement support for compile:file(File, [core]) same as
>>   compile:file(File, [asm]).
>>
>> * Officially document 'core' and 'asm' as external names for
>>   'from_asm' and 'from_core'?
>>
>> * Change the existing documentation for 'asm' to not discourage use of
>>   the option as much.
>>
>> * Officially document that "erlc foo.core" and "erlc foo.S" have been
>>   wired to from_core and from_asm for ages?
>>
>> (2) Document compile_core/3 and compile_asm/3
>>
>> Alternatively, one could call compile:compile_asm/3 and
>> compile:compile_core/3, but they're internal functions meant to be
>> used only from erl_compile (used by erlc). This would actually be the
>> most backwards compatible solution if we don't want to require a
>> patched compile.beam.
>>
>> So, what about alternatively or additionally documenting
>> compile_core/3 and compile_asm/3?
>
> ping

ping