[erlang-questions] Frames proposal

Steve Davis steven.charles.davis@REDACTED
Sat Dec 29 15:05:22 CET 2012

Ah yes... it also leaves the flexibility in place for frame/map processing without *having* to specify it being of a particular named type. 

That would work great.

....R16 anyone?


On Dec 29, 2012, at 7:51 AM, Joe Armstrong <erlang@REDACTED> wrote:
> would be (with maps) (using the key 'type' to name the record)
> foo(#{type=record}=R) -> ...
> foo(#{type=another_record}=R) -> ...

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list