[erlang-questions] Re: Will parameterized modules become an official part of Erlang?

[Zubair Quraishi]

I disagree because the fact that parameterised modules are used only
"internally" in OTP tells me that they "could" be removed. I say this
because removing parameterised modules would not break any client libraries
for OTP, as the internals of OTP could just be changed.

Is there anyone from Ericcson who could shed light on this, or is it simply
a "risk" to use parameterised modules?

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Rapsey <rapsey@REDACTED> wrote:

> Not a large chance of that. It's used in a number of libraries including
> OTP
> internally.
>
>
> Sergej
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Zubair Quraishi <zubairq@REDACTED>
> wrote:
>
> > What I originally wanted to know though is whether there is a chnace they
> > will be "removed" from the language, as I'm only going to use features
> that
> > are here to stay.
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Roberto Ostinelli <roberto@REDACTED
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > 2010/2/20 Steve Davis <steven.charles.davis@REDACTED>
> > >
> > >    Hi Tuncer,
> > >
> > >    Yep, I have read that paper. I think that was where I first learned
> > >    how to use parameterized modules.
> > >
> > >    I'm just saying that in practice, I am personally using them less
> and
> > >    less.
> > >
> > >    regs,
> > >    /s
> > >
> > > my $0.02:
> > >
> > > i find parametrized modules particularly useful in callbacks functions
> > > exposed to external programmers. using them, you can pass something
> > pretty
> > > close to an object, with its values and methods, reducing the need for
> > > these
> > > programmers to know the deep magic of your library.
> > >
> > > all about code usability, and personal taste, i guess.
> > >
> > > r.
> > >
> >
>