Thu Dec 11 09:11:03 CET 2003
I am certainly putting my money on no 1!
The case when "a + 32" craches my code will be easily detected
the first time I run that piece of code, and since I *do* test my
code before delivery, this is a non-problem. I would not like
having anyone wasting their valuable time improving the compiler
to catch this and also wasting more CPU power on everyones
computer when compiling.
> which is either crap (arguably) or a typo (A vs a), how many
> Erlang users:
> 1. Are content with the current situation where the compiler
> happily compiles this program
> 2. Would like to see a warning, but a .beam file generated
> 3. Would prefer if the compiler in R10 refused to compile it
> Notice I am not talking about any serious attempt to static
> type checking, but for really "basic" checks.
More information about the erlang-questions