[erlang-questions] Did Erlang's grammar change in R16A?

[Björn-Egil Dahlberg]

2013/2/14 Loïc Hoguin <essen@REDACTED>

> On 02/14/2013 11:42 PM, Björn-Egil Dahlberg wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2013/2/14 Loïc Hoguin <essen@REDACTED <mailto:essen@REDACTED>>
>>
>>
>>     On 02/14/2013 11:18 PM, Björn-Egil Dahlberg wrote:
>>
>>         * Creating atoms in runtime. It should only have been allowed in
>>         code
>>         and never by list_to_atom/1 or binary_to_atom/1,2
>>         (binary_to_term would
>>         still be a thing though)
>>
>>
>>     Anthony Ramine has a "split the atoms" implementation of ROK's EEP
>>     in progress which allows to dynamically create garbage-collected
>>     atoms, fixing all issues related to creating them at runtime. You
>>     might want to take a look or help getting this in quicker:
>>
>>
>> My point was actually not to have atoms as strings (and prolog filenames).
>>
>> If I'm reading the EEP correctly: a local atom would actually require a
>> larger heap space than an equivalent heap binary .. which is a feat all
>> by itself.
>>
>> I gather that could be remedied though. Haven't looked at the code.
>>
>> I agree that atom gc is needed but it shouldn't be an excuse for using
>> dynamic atoms instead of binaries. Besides, if locals atoms are larger
>> than binaries why would you use atoms. (I might be wrong about the size
>> though .. didn't look that hard).
>>
>
> Some things still only take atoms, like register/2. That's just one
> example out of many. :)


Yeah .. kinda stuck with dynamically created atoms now. But using atoms as
strings .. thats just a poor life choice.

// Björn-Egil .. needs .. sleep .. now



>
>
> --
> Loïc Hoguin
>
> Erlang Cowboy
> Nine Nines
> http://ninenines.eu
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20130214/4f4ca295/attachment.htm>