[erlang-questions] Cleaning up the dialyzer interface
Thu Mar 9 00:47:22 CET 2017
I forgot to add this example:
Why can't I write:
$ dialyzer foo.erl bar.beam
there is no logical or practical reason.
On 9 March 2017 at 00:32, Robert Virding <rvirding@REDACTED> wrote:
> I completely agree with you but was using the term "interface" in a more
> general way than you do to include the command line as well. The things I
> mentioned are irrespective of whether you start the dialyzer through
> function calls or command-line.
> On 8 March 2017 at 06:17, Michael Truog <mjtruog@REDACTED> wrote:
>> On 03/06/2017 04:17 PM, Robert Virding wrote:
>>> Is anyone working on cleaning up the dialyzer interface? It does some
>>> strange things like for no discernable reason requiring all files to be
>>> either .erl files or .beam files and not allowing a combination. Also it it
>>> is not in any way extensible.
>> It might be better to consider removing the dialyzer interface and just
>> focus on making the command-line use of dialyzer as efficient as possible,
>> so it may always be part of per-commit regression testing. The dialyzer UI
>> interface is attempting to promote manual use of dialyzer, which isn't a
>> common use-case. Also, often UI creates development burden that leads to
>> source code becoming more inefficient (like comparing Thunderbird and mutt
>> for email). While it is easy to expect a perfect outcome with a UI
>> implementation, I don't believe it is realistic or helpful for normal
>> (required/critical) use of dialyzer.
>> Best Regards,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions