[erlang-questions] Getting rid of the preprocessor
Thu May 24 15:11:32 CEST 2012
Ah I see :-)
The "bad" key-word here is "generic tool provider".
Maybe good README.markdown file will help somehow? It always helps when
code cannot solve everything.
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Vlad Dumitrescu <vladdu55@REDACTED> wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Max Bourinov <bourinov@REDACTED> wrote:
> > You are right, it is nearly impossible to properly work with macros in
> > IDE. I never tried erlide. Does it give any coding performance boost? I
> > sublime2 and emacs. Most of Erlangers uses Emacs (as far as I know).
> Well, there's a whole bunch of them at Ericsson use erlide, plus
> others that I only have fragmentary information. Of course, I believe
> that an IDE helps the development process, but I know that it is a
> controversial question. Some people like it, some don't.
> > About your example: You can agree within your team which macros you will
> > and which not. For example:
> > 1. No complicated code snippets in macros - this is good for code
> > simplicity.
> > 2. All atoms that are flying between modules must be in macros. Or even
> > better - use records for that.
> > Simple rules - simple code. Macros are good. They are cool. Use right
> > and you have no problems.
> Yes, that would be good enough for me -- but as a generic tool
> provider, I can't force people to follow any rules. There is also the
> issue of legacy code, that nobody will touch as long as it works.
> Anyway, the simple usage you describe above doesn't require a
> preprocessor, these could be handled inside the language with some
> additions to the compiler. This would enforce the cleanliness and I
> don't think anybody would feel sorry about that. For the dirty work,
> the preprocessor could still be there, if needed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions