Enhanced type guard syntax]
Thu Sep 18 13:22:05 CEST 2003
This is a wonderful suggestion. I would welcome it. Furthermore I
would also welcome compile-time checking in cases where it is
practical. Such a small thing could be a stepping stone to some
ultimate type system.
> foo(A/integer, B/integer) ->
> A * B.
What is the runtime expense of performing such checks?
The technique I employ is liberal use of unit tests so I can avoid type
checking at runtime and gain a slight performance advantage. But
perhaps this is an illusion? What is the real expense?
Would this lead the way to a user-defined type system some day, one that
even supports recursive type definitions?
-type (blammo, [atom() | blammo()]).
foo (A/blammo, B/blammo) ->
blammize (A, B).
Maybe I've been hanging around ObjectiveCAML too much. M. Logan
probably thinks I'm crazy. ;-)
More information about the erlang-questions