Longstanding issues: structs & standalone Erlang

Vlad Dumitrescu vlad_dumitrescu@REDACTED
Thu Mar 2 09:04:09 CET 2006


My personal opinion is that by modules is better, because I handle a module
at a time. It would also be easier to provide a small rules file per module
(maybe even embedded in the source code?)

But the rules could be viewed in a viewer that could show them in any
grouping and sorting order.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-erlang-questions@REDACTED 
> [mailto:owner-erlang-questions@REDACTED] On Behalf Of Bengt Kleberg
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 7:58 AM
> To: erlang-questions@REDACTED
> Subject: Re: Longstanding issues: structs & standalone Erlang
> On 2006-02-23 09:14, Vlad Dumitrescu XX (LN/EAB) wrote:
> ...deleted
> > I found an interesting tool for Java, called Macker 
> > (http://innig.net/macker/), that I think would be nice to 
> translate to 
> > any language. The idea is to define the architecture in a 
> file and let 
> > the tool check if the code is structured accordingly or 
> not, spitting 
> > out errors and warnings.
> do you think it is ''better'' to have the rules arranged 
> after allow/deny at the top level, or after modules at the top?
> bengt

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list