[erlang-questions] Fwd: Must and May convention

[Roman Galeev]

> We could imagine an intermediate category of calls that are a sort of
"pure RPC"

Yeah, I've been thinking of something like that. Anyway, this 'pure RPC'
notion could give enough clues to a developer, and to code analyzing tools.

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:39 PM, zxq9 <zxq9@REDACTED> wrote:

> On 2017年09月28日 木曜日 12:32:32 you wrote:
> > Interesting. Not so strictly speaking, some of the gen_server calls that
> do
> > not change its state may be seen as 'pure' albeit relying on messaging,
> and
> > a tool could probably figure out such calls automatically. And this
> > definitely could help to figure out what' going on in a project.
>
> Perhaps -- but you probably do NOT want a naked call there, because there
> is no guarantee the process you called actually exists. Or is on the same
> node. Or is calling some external resource not even related to Erlang to
> figure out its response.
>
> We could imagine an intermediate category of calls that are a sort of
> "pure RPC", but the utility of this distinction may be pretty limited --
> we can't (and shouldn't) know what is going on inside another process.
>
> Anyway, it is worth exploring the idea, maybe. At the moment I'm looking
> at a very limited goal: getting pure declarations to be a real thing. If
> I had more time I would formally propose it and work on implementation --
> but I have my hands full and a HUGE backlog of other, slightly higher
> priority things I think will improve Erlang tooling at a more immediate
> level of impact.
>
> -Craig
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>



-- 
With best regards,
     Roman Galeev,
     +420 702 817 968
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20170928/c0d92152/attachment.htm>