[erlang-questions] Specs for optional callbacks (try 2)

[Darach Ennis]

+1. This would really help reduce boilerplate and increase documentation of
intent.

Cheers,

Darach.
On 24 Sep 2014 18:17, "Jesse Gumm" <gumm@REDACTED> wrote:

> I would really like to see this as well. I think it's a solid idea.
>
> +1 from me.
>
> -Jesse
>
> --
> Jesse Gumm
> Owner, Sigma Star Systems
> 414.940.4866 || sigma-star.com || @jessegumm
> On Sep 24, 2014 11:52 AM, "Loïc Hoguin" <essen@REDACTED> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I didn't get any reply on my previous question almost 2 years ago here:
>> http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2013-January/071763.html
>>
>> So let me ask again, is there any plans for adding something like
>> -optional_callback that would do the same as -callback except it would not
>> require the callback to be defined? Basically Dialyzer would use it, and
>> the compiler wouldn't fail if the callback is missing.
>>
>> As it stands now I am about to remove most -behavior in Cowboy because
>> they're starting to make little sense because most callbacks become
>> optional. The simplest handler type will have 3 possible callbacks, 2 being
>> optional. The most complex handler type already has 20+ callbacks with only
>> 1 required.
>>
>> Thanks for any reply.
>>
>> --
>> Loïc Hoguin
>> http://ninenines.eu
>> _______________________________________________
>> erlang-questions mailing list
>> erlang-questions@REDACTED
>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20140924/f0d937f4/attachment.htm>