<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<style type="text/css">body { font-family:'DejaVu Sans Mono'; font-size:12px}</style>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:51:27 -0400, Björn-Egil Dahlberg <egil@erlang.org> wrote:<br><br><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0.80ex; border-left: #0000FF 2px solid; padding-left: 1ex">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br></div>
<blockquote cite="mid:op.w5rrm7itvksmfo@shuttle.squirrel" type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>I don't get this use case. Why do you need syntax support
for a key-value map where you don't know a priori what the
keys and values are? Why don't dict() and friends suffice?<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>To me this is akin to iterating through a record/tuple.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Actually these functions are needed, at least one is needed
internally, I think.<br>
<br>
It should be covered in comprehensions with Maps generators. Maps
generators needs next(Key, Map).<br>
<br> But for small Maps and record like behaviour they are not needed. =)</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Mm, I think I disagree about the need for map-generators as well. Couldn't that be equally well served by implementing a qlc dict() source?</div><div><br></div><div>Well I shouldn't complain too much. Richard O'Keefe and I both argued strenuously against conflating heterogeneous (record-like) and homogeneous (dict-like) maps months ago but I guess that ship has sailed.</div><div><br></div><div>I will just avoid using the dict-like features of these maps in my code, and hope that I am not forced to do so by the standard library or by popular applications.</div><div><br></div><div>BTW, is there a plan for a type notation for these new maps, or for how to get Dialyzer to usefully type-check them?</div></body></html>