BEAM implementation questions

Thomas Lindgren thomasl_erlang@REDACTED
Tue Jan 25 14:06:32 CET 2005

--- Richard Carlsson <richardc@REDACTED> wrote:

> There is surprisingly little slack in the semantics
> of receive (sometimes this can be a bit of a problem
> for implementors).

Yet even if we use the Core Erlang definition, it's
still lax enough to permit other implementations with
the same functional behaviour, I'm sure you'll agree.

Taking a broader view, the semantics you mention in
the Core Erlang specification is very operational, but
one could also go for more denotational (or at least
higher-level) versions. 

The message passing guarantees I seem to recall seeing
in the Erlang documentation are fairly freewheeling
about order of delivery of messages sent, for example.
(Though I can't seem to find the passage I was
thinking about, so I'll have to mumble a bit here ...

An Erlang implementation (a perverse one?) could
conceivably exploit that, for instance.

(Well, this could probably be expressed better, but
I'll have to leave it at that.)


Do you Yahoo!? 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. 

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list