[erlang-questions] My biggest beef with Erlang

Alex Alvarez eajam@REDACTED
Mon Nov 26 22:55:41 CET 2007

Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't this exactly like Erlang?
(mod:func ... )              ==  mod:func(...)
(apply mod 'func ( ... ))  ==  apply(mod, func, ...)Obviously, the syntax changes a little bit, but all the functionality is there already.  Actually, Erlang looks a lot cleaner from my view...Cheers, Alex

Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:36:48 +0100From: rvirding@REDACTED: chsu79@REDACTED: erlang-questions@REDACTED: Re: [erlang-questions] My biggest beef with ErlangOn 26/11/2007, Robert Virding <rvirding@REDACTED> wrote:

Scheme allows defining a prefix within the a symbol which means it refers to another module (library for them) so you would write:(mod:func ... )when you know where to go at compiletime. At least that's how I interpreted the spec. Then for the general case you could use: (apply mod 'func ( ... ))or how about:(: mod func arg1 arg2 ... )for all cases?
Equivalent to funcall in CL, this would be a remote funcall. Again a bit heavy for the standard case. Of course some mailers might see that as a smiley. :-)Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20071126/a472037f/attachment.htm>

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list