[erlang-questions] Element Typing in Record Declarations?

[Michael Radford]

You can exploit the fact that record default values seem to be evaluated
like macros (which I personally just discovered):

-module (x).
-export ([ f/0, g/0 ]).
-record (r, { a = erlang:error({ undefined, a }), b = default_b }).
f() -> #r{}.
g() -> #r{ a = foo }.

At runtime, this works just as you'd want:

1> x:f().
** exited: {{undefined,a},
            [{x,f,0},
             {erl_eval,do_apply,5},
             {shell,exprs,6},
             {shell,eval_loop,3}]} **

=ERROR REPORT==== 24-Feb-2009::11:04:24 ===
Error in process <0.31.0> with exit value:
{{undefined,a},[{x,f,0},{erl_eval,do_apply,5},{shell,exprs,6},{shell,eval_loop,3}]}

2> x:g().
{r,foo,default_b}


Mike

Magnus Henoch writes:
> "David Mercer" <dmercer@REDACTED> writes:
> 
> > It appears that Erlang supports type declarations in record declarations,
> 
> Speaking of which, I sometimes find it annoying that a field without a
> default value automatically has the atom 'undefined' as an allowed
> value.  I'd like to be able to declare a record field as being required
> but having no default value, and have Dialyzer point out all the cases
> where I create such a record without specifying a value for that field.
> 
> I guess I'm still too much of an $OTHER_LANGUAGE programmer; am I
> missing something?
> 
> -- 
> Magnus Henoch, magnus@REDACTED
> Erlang Training and Consulting
> http://www.erlang-consulting.com/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions