[erlang-questions] EEP 45: New macros for function name and arity

[Richard A. O'Keefe]

The current draft

* defines FUNCTION_STRING (in Examples)

* has a section saying why FUNCTION_STRING
  doesn't exist.

I suggest that the section title should be
"Why do I have to define FUNCTION_STRING myself?"
and that the most important reason is that there
are *two* reasonable definitions

-define(FUNCTION_STRING,
   atom_to_list(?FUNCTION_NAME) ++ "/" ++
   integer_to_list(?FUNCTION_ARITY)).

and

-define(FUNCTION_STRING,
   ?MODULE_STRING ++ ":" ++
   atom_to_list(?FUNCTION_NAME) ++ "/" ++
   integer_to_list(?FUNCTION_ARITY)).

and that it's up to you to pick the one you need.
That section starts with

There already exist MODULE and MODULE_STRING macros,
so why no MODULE_STRING macro?
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

where the second MODULE_STRING should be FUNCTION_STRING.

It would be nice if the Examples section included

self_ref(Data, Handler) ->
    ...
    Handler(fun ?FUNCTION_NAME/?FUNCTION_ARITY, Data)
    ...

Now the message I am replying to says that
-define(FOO, foo).
?FOO(?FOO) -> ?FOO.
is *not* a 'form that starts with an atom followed
by a left parenthesis'.  But the EEP specifically
says
The following is also legal:

-define(A, a).
?A(?FUNCTION_NAME) -> ok.

Perhaps the simplest model is just to say that
?FUNCTION_NAME (and of course ?FUNCTION_ARITY)
may not begin any form.