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

Garrett Smith g@REDACTED
Mon Feb 22 18:36:14 CET 2010

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Geoff Cant <nem@REDACTED> wrote:
> Zubair Quraishi <zubairq@REDACTED> writes:
>> 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.


> We still have time to ditch them :)


I think the concept is fine, but if they take off they're going to
bifurcate Erlang APIs into traditional API modules that take explicit
process refs/state and this other breed that somehow gets by without
them. Yuck!

IMO, this meme (coupling state and behavior) is way too fundamental to
have two major variants in a language.


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list