[erlang-questions] Version numbering scheme change and the implication / Re: [ANN] Erlang/OTP 17.0-rc1 has been released.

Vlad Dumitrescu vladdu55@REDACTED
Fri Feb 7 14:20:26 CET 2014

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Motiejus Jakštys <desired.mta@REDACTED> wrote:
> This is valid, but works when it is possible and not crazily expensive
> to do this at runtime. My use case is a library which has -callback
> support. Should we generate behaviours using behaviour_info/1 or
> -callback (pre-R15 or R15+)? Sure, we can take the cowboy approach (pun
> intended): do not support legacy OTP versions. But what if I can and
> want to, and that's the only thing keeping users with R13B04 away from
> my library?

So what would really be useful to have is a macro (and maybe runtime
function on the compiler) that specifies the "source code level". This
way one doesn't have to keep track of which versions have relevant
changes at the language level.

I'd find those useful too (the runtime value is useful if compiling
code from strings/binaries without preprocessing).


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list