Child modules draft feedback wanted

Ulf Wiger (AL/EAB) ulf.wiger@REDACTED
Fri Mar 31 11:21:38 CEST 2006

Romain Lenglet wrote:
> Why not have a specific construct or convention to get record 
> information at a module level (not at a source code level, 
> like -record). For instance, for behaviour, the functions to 
> implement are specified in the behaviour module as a function: 
> behaviour_info/1. What not have a similar record_info/1 
> function??? That function would return the list of field 
> names (as atoms) for the record name given as an atom as an argument.
> E.g.:
> -module(record_spec).
> -export([record_info/1]).
> record_info(record1) ->
>     [field1, field2];
> record_info(record2) ->
>     [field1, field2, field3].

This was basically proposed by Mats Cronqvist not long ago:

Since it is not allowed today to define a function
record_info/1 in a module, it would be very easy to have the
compiler generate and export such a function, rather than 
providing it only as a pseudo-function.

> And in using modules, we could use a modified -record construct:
> -record(Module, RecordName).
> It would be like an "import of record definition". E.g.:
> -record(record_spec, record1).

I would prefer -use_record or -import_record, to avoid

/Ulf W

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list