[erlang-questions] warnings for "not recommended" usage of language constructs

Vlad Dumitrescu vladdu55@REDACTED
Sat May 17 17:30:47 CEST 2014


On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Kostis Sagonas <kostis@REDACTED> wrote:

> On 05/17/2014 05:03 PM, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
>> The current implementation looks like it just goes through the different
>> checks sequentially, so it shouldn't be a huge amount of work to extract
>> the steps to separate modules.
> Please don't. This is a terrible idea. Among other reasons, there is no
> point in further polluting the module name space.
> Kostis

Ok, I can agree with that. Then the plug-in checkers should be functions
and the default ones could still be located in erl_lint.

The reason I said modules was that in the general case a plug-in may have
multiple API/SPI entry points and in Erlang the only structure above
functions is a module. I can imagine having the concept of modules
separated from that of a source code file (i.e. dynamic modules) and those
could be applied here, but I feel that is a discussion that I am not ready
for at this moment.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20140517/79070560/attachment.htm>

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list