<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013-10-30 15:03, Chris King wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:op.w5rtcxqcvksmfo@shuttle.squirrel"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<style type="text/css">body { font-family:'DejaVu Sans Mono'; font-size:12px}</style>
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:51:27 -0400, Björn-Egil Dahlberg
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:egil@erlang.org"><egil@erlang.org></a> 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>
</blockquote>
<br>
What I meant was it needs a stepping structure internally. I don't
think next(K,M) would suffice here though, need to think about it a
bit more. All the comprehensions, generators, next, prev, tree
structures and variables in keys goes hand in hand and those are a
bit down the road. Don't fret about it =)<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:op.w5rtcxqcvksmfo@shuttle.squirrel"
type="cite">
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yep.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:op.w5rtcxqcvksmfo@shuttle.squirrel"
type="cite">
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
ofc.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:op.w5rtcxqcvksmfo@shuttle.squirrel"
type="cite">
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes. The type notation is the same as with other terms. How well
Dialyzer would be able to handle it is a different matter. I plan to
make them really stupid at first, meaning opaque map(). Later
incarnations of dialyzer could be increasingly smarter.<br>
<br>
// Björn-Egil<br>
</body>
</html>