[erlang-questions] [Dialyser] Type parametrized behaviours

[Stavros Aronis]

Hi Francesco,

Do you mean that after your update these types have to be moved within the 
behaviour file itself? If this is the case, you could export them using the 
"-export_type" attribute and then use them as remote types: 
"behaviour_module:type_name()". You can use them in this way in both specs 
and other -type definitions and at least Dialyzer won't have any problem at 
all.

Stavros

On Tuesday, April 24, 2012 5:42:58 PM UTC+3, Francesco Mazzoli wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have recently updated some code to use the new callback signatures for 
> behaviours. Before that, we simply used a .hrl file that we included in 
> each implementing module.
>
> While hacky, the old approach had an advantage: we could include in the 
> .hrl specs some types that were to be defined in the including file, and 
> then used in type signatures.
>
> It would be useful to be able to parametrize behaviours by type more 
> nicely, since most behaviours specs are dominated by 1 or 2 types 
> (classically some kind of state) and as of now no typechecking takes 
> place on those types. That might be achieved with some pre-processor 
> directive, e.g. -behaviour_type(whatever).
>
> What do you think?
>
> Francesco.
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
>
On Tuesday, April 24, 2012 5:42:58 PM UTC+3, Francesco Mazzoli wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have recently updated some code to use the new callback signatures for 
> behaviours. Before that, we simply used a .hrl file that we included in 
> each implementing module.
>
> While hacky, the old approach had an advantage: we could include in the 
> .hrl specs some types that were to be defined in the including file, and 
> then used in type signatures.
>
> It would be useful to be able to parametrize behaviours by type more 
> nicely, since most behaviours specs are dominated by 1 or 2 types 
> (classically some kind of state) and as of now no typechecking takes 
> place on those types. That might be achieved with some pre-processor 
> directive, e.g. -behaviour_type(whatever).
>
> What do you think?
>
> Francesco.
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20120424/09599d0c/attachment.htm>