<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'><BR>
Thanks for clearing that up. But then again, that suggestion would make it more Lispy, and I suppose would be quite a change for the tokenizer. Although this is certainly just talking, not like if anything like this will actually be necessarily implemented, but wouldn't it be more Erlang to have<BR>
<BR>
mod::func(...)<BR><BR>, rather than<BR>
<BR>
(: mod func ... )<BR>
<BR> <BR>
Irrelevant of the form used, the point is to accept the basic syntax of the language and expand on it, not make it look like my favorite language X or Y.<BR>
<BR>
Cheers, Alex<BR><BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<HR id=EC_stopSpelling>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:46:32 +0100<BR>From: rvirding@gmail.com<BR>To: eajam@hotmail.com<BR>Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] My biggest beef with Erlang<BR>CC: erlang-questions@erlang.org<BR><BR>I would more translate it as:<BR><BR>mod:func( ... ) == (remote-call 'mod 'func ... )<BR>Mod:func( ... ) == (remote-call mod 'func ... )<BR>apply(Mod, Func, [...]) == (apply mod func (...)) <BR><BR>You could actually skip remote-call and just have apply, it would be no problem for the compiler to detect the case when the argument list is known.<BR><BR>Someone came with perfectly reasonable suggestion of having a macro for the more usual case: <BR><BR>(: mod func ... ) ==> (remote-call 'mod 'func ... )<BR><BR>Robert<BR><BR>
<DIV><SPAN class=EC_gmail_quote>On 26/11/2007, <B class=EC_gmail_sendername>Alex Alvarez</B> <<A href="mailto:eajam@hotmail.com"> eajam@hotmail.com</A>> wrote:</SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=EC_gmail_quote style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex">
<DIV>Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't this exactly like Erlang?<BR> <BR>(mod:func ... ) == mod:func(...)<BR>(apply mod 'func ( ... )) == apply(mod, func, ...)<BR><BR>Obviously, the syntax changes a little bit, but all the functionality is there already. Actually, Erlang looks a lot cleaner from my view...<BR><BR>Cheers, Alex <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<HR>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:36:48 +0100<BR>From: <A href="mailto:rvirding@gmail.com">rvirding@gmail.com</A><BR>To: <A href="mailto:chsu79@gmail.com">chsu79@gmail.com</A><BR>CC: <A href="mailto:erlang-questions@erlang.org">erlang-questions@erlang.org</A><BR>Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] My biggest beef with Erlang
<DIV><SPAN class=EC_e id=EC_q_1168377825baaa5e_1><BR><BR>On 26/11/2007, <B>Robert Virding</B> <<A href="mailto:rvirding@gmail.com">rvirding@gmail.com </A>> wrote:
<DIV><SPAN></SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex">
<DIV>
<DIV>Scheme allows defining a prefix within the a symbol which means it refers to another module (library for them) so you would write:<BR><BR>(mod:func ... )<BR><BR>when you know where to go at compiletime. At least that's how I interpreted the spec. Then for the general case you could use: <BR><BR>(apply mod 'func ( ... ))<BR><BR>or how about:<BR><BR>(: mod func arg1 arg2 ... )<BR><BR>for all cases?</DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>Equivalent to funcall in CL, this would be a remote funcall. Again a bit heavy for the standard case. <BR><BR>Of course some mailers might see that as a smiley. :-)<BR><BR>Robert<BR><BR></DIV></DIV></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>erlang-questions mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:erlang-questions@erlang.org">erlang-questions@erlang.org</A><BR><A href="http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions" target=_blank>http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></body>
</html>