[erlang-questions] module params not visible everywhere

[Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)]

Richard Carlsson wrote:
> 
> Variables in a record definition are not a good idea
> (currently). Since the expressions that specify field
> defaults will be inline expanded at the point where you
> create a new record, they may be subject to name capture.
> E.g., in the following case:
> 
>      -module(foo, [X, Y]).
>      -record(bar, {a = X, b = Y}).
>      ...
>      f() ->  fun (X) -> #bar{} end.

Currently, this doesn't even compile.

> 
> the record would probably not contain what you expected 
> (well, perhaps if you are used to programming Emacs Lisp...).

In the case of module parameters, it ought to be safe,
since they cannot be redefined.

> For now, the easiest way to get this right is to write the 
> field initializer functions manually (in any case it's best 
> not to put anything more complicated than a function call in 
> a record field initializer; you'll get code duplication and whatnot).

Unfortunately, this is not so easy in my particular case,
since I'm recompiling legacy code (epp, in this particular
case) in erlhive. The code is written, and I add special
module parameters onto the modules to handle user context. 
Part of the goal is to rewrite as little of the code as 
possible.

The original record definition _did_ have only a function
call to dict:new(). The code generator wraps this, 
"unfortunately" adding a context based on the module 
parameter. That has worked beautifully until now. (:

For most users, I guess your proposed workaround is 
perfectly fine.

BR,
Ulf W