undocumented modules in OTP
Wed Aug 14 13:28:28 CEST 2002
> Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 13:17:34 +0200 (MEST)
> From: Ingela Anderton <ingela@REDACTED>
> To: daniel.neri@REDACTED
> cc: erlang-questions@REDACTED
> Subject: Re: undocumented modules in OTP
> daniel.neri@REDACTED wrote:
> > I've complained about this before, but anyway here it goes again...
> > Wouldn't it be nice if this kind of module was named consistently? We
> > now have, on one hand:
> > dict, digraph, ets, dets, orddict, queue, string, sofs.
> > On the other:
> > sets, ordsets, lists, gb_sets, gb_trees, proplists.
> > IMNSHO, the plural "s" in the latter group is ugly and should go away
> > as soon as possible.
> Well I will agree that being consistent is very nice. But this should
> have been thought of a long time ago, alas it was not. Changing it now
perhaps it is possible to think of it now?
there where mistakes made in the beginning (impossible to correct now
:-(, but it is not neccessary to repeat the same mistakes again.
More information about the erlang-questions