[erlang-questions] Hungarian notation for Erlang / ETL
Wed Jan 9 13:36:39 CET 2008
1. I also hate Hungarian notation and doesn't use it even in C++ (except m_
prefix), but I still need a solution for current version of Elrang (does it
mean that I need always use Dyalizer?).
2. I wasn't talking about implementing object using Erlang processes. I
talking about much simpler and functional solution, like providing
then each ADT will implement this bahaviour, like:
David Holz wrote:
> From: exta7@REDACTED
>> Is there some kind of Hungarian notation for Erlang? i.e. prefix or
>> naming convention.
> Hungarian notation is the absolute wrong solution to type confusion (or
> any other problem). The new type annotations will eventually provide
> optional type information available to both the compiler and IDEs for
> keeping things straight. It won't be long before it's an official part of
> the release; the annotation handling is in there already, just not
> I would, though, also like to see some sort of actual OO-ish interface to
> a block of data that can dispatch to the proper behavior for that specific
> data term. Java's collections and IO streams, while verbose, are
> incredibly usable implementations of that idea at their core. With
> Erlang, however, it might mean that your data item is held by its own
> process, with a well-defined messaging interface, and might want some sort
> of automatic deferring to a parent process/module for unhandled calls or
> messages in the receive loop.
> Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live.
> erlang-questions mailing list
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Hungarian-notation-for-Erlang---ETL-tp14701912p14710892.html
Sent from the Erlang Questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
More information about the erlang-questions