<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: Record selectors</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> > So, it would seem that even to make a simple analysis tool </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> would require the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > compiler to hold onto the knowledge of record definitions a </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> few more steps</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > into the process (before finally turning accesses into </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> erlang:element/2</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > calls). Any comments from Compiler writers??</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Changing the compiler would be simplest part. Updating all tools that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> use the abstract code (the debugger, xref, and cover) would </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> be more work.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Well this sounds very positive. I guess you see no issue with the principle of getting xref to do record consistency checking - it is simply a matter of prioritisation and work.. Or am I reading too much into your reply??!</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Sean</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<P><B><FONT SIZE=2>NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER:</FONT></B>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=2>This email (including attachments) is confidential. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system without copying or disseminating it or placing any reliance upon its contents. We cannot accept liability for any breaches of confidence arising through use of email. Any opinions expressed in this email (including attachments) are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect our opinions. We will not accept responsibility for any commitments made by our employees outside the scope of our business. We do not warrant the accuracy or completeness of such information.</FONT></B></P>
</BODY>
</HTML>