ANNOUNCE ex11 release two

[Shawn Pearce]

Joe Armstrong <joe@REDACTED> wrote:
> To answer this you need to understand what a fun really is:

Excellent explanation of a fun, and is more or less what I knew of
how funs work.  I think what I was going for was more to make it
easier for the developer to write the messages...

> The point to note is that code like
> 
> 	B ! {onClick, fun(X) -> S ! {wrapper, X} end}
> and 
> 	B ! {onClick, {S,  Wrapper}}

The first line is much longer to write than the second.  So I think
my comment was largely written because I found the second form to be
shorter to type.

> This isn't really true, sending a fun in a message *is* just sending
> a tagged message and because of the way this message is represented
> internally it might even use less space and be more efficient.

This I didn't realize, and now that you make the point, I can see
how a fun might in fact take up less space than a tuple.  Saving a few
bytes or a few machine instructions to make it 'faster' is really not
all that important, as the X server alone must be chewing up a good
amount of resources, let alone the ex11 code.  I think I just threw
that in as another excuse for why I suggested the second form above.

What a waste of bytes this message is.  But we're not counting
bytes are we?  :-)

-- 
Shawn.

  Calm down, it's *____only* ones and zeroes.