[erlang-questions] Erlang Extension Proposals (EEPs)

[Thomas Lindgren]

--- Kenneth Lundin <kenneth.lundin@REDACTED> wrote:

> On 1/29/07, Thomas Lindgren
> <thomasl_erlang@REDACTED> wrote:
> >
> > --- Per Gustafsson <per.gustafsson@REDACTED>
> wrote:
> >
> > > In conjunction with the Erlang User Conference
> 2006
> > > there was a workshop
> > > concerning the future development of Erlang.
> > >
> > > In this workshop a decision was made to adopt
> the
> > > Python process for
> > > future Erlang development. Since nothing has
> > > happened since then I have
> > > taken it upon myself to edit PEP 1, the python
> > > extension proposal which
> > > describes how the python process works. This
> should
> > > be viewed as a draft
> > > so please feel free to suggest changes. There
> are
> > > also a lot of decision
> > > that needs to be made and issues that need to be
> > > solved. I'll list some
> > > of them below.
> >
> > I think the basic concept sounds useful, since it
> may
> > make proposals more concrete and discussions
> better
> > focused, and it preserves a history of the
> decisions
> > made. Of course, there still may be devils in the
> > details.
> >
> > My first question is: is this intended for changes
> to
> > Erlang, or to Erlang/OTP? Given that the ultimate
> > acceptance decision seems to taken by OTP, it
> seems
> > like we're really talking about Erlang/OTP?
> 
> First what do you mean with Erlang, OTP and
> Erlang/OTP?

Erlang: a popular programming language
OTP: an Ericsson organization
Erlang/OTP: the OTP implementation of Erlang (and
more)

> My view of it is that:
> - Erlang/OTP is equivalent with OTP
> - Erlang is the language and the only full
> implementation that I am aware of is
> delivered as part of Erlang/OTP.
> 
> The EEP process mainly is intended for:
> -  changes to the Erlang language
> - changed behaviour of the Erlang runtime system
> (might be thought of
> as part of the language)
> - significant changes to standard libraries (stdlib,
> kernel)
> - system principles, ...
> - there are always grey zones and we have treat each
> EEP in a good way.
> 
> 
> > (Alternatively, that the two are basically the
> same.
> > This issue is a bit unclear at present.)
> >
> > And, second question, will OTP henceforth
> primarily
> > use this process to introduce changes to the
> language?
> 
> 
> Yes, the OTP team at Ericsson will primarily use
> this process to introduce
> changes  in language, runtime system and libraries.
> 
> The OTP team will of course be represented as
> editors and will have a
> lot to say
> about if, when and how new things are introduced.

Okay, that clarifies it. The other approach (as
exemplified by the old spec, for instance) is to see
Erlang the language as something independent of
Erlang/OTP, in which case it might have been more
suitable not to hand all the decision making power to
OTP. But I have no big objection to leaving those
decisions to OTP if we are talking about the future
development of the Erlang part of the Erlang/OTP
platform.

Best,
Thomas



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
The fish are biting. 
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php