[erlang-questions] Maps

Tom Murphy amindfv@REDACTED
Fri May 10 15:19:12 CEST 2013

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 4:48 AM, Loïc Hoguin <essen@REDACTED> wrote:

> On 05/10/2013 05:03 AM, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
>>      Frames are optimised (pared to the bone, in fact) for use in
>>      record-like ways.  They are somewhere between pathetic and
>>      hopeless as general purpose dictionaries.
> I think that's the bigger issue with frames. Are they worth spending the
> time implementing considering they are essentially a records replacement?
> Records work good enough for most purposes, with the exception of upgrades,
> which few people do anyway.

One of the things that's very compelling to me about frames as a record
replacement is that (as I understand it), frames are fully-distinguishable
as a separate data type.

The record abstraction is *very* leaky. Any Erlang coder who uses records
has to know about - and contend with - its underlying representation as a
tuple (insertion into ETS tables, for example, is something that's common
and trips people up when the first atom (the record tag) is used as the key
for the table).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20130510/1651d45e/attachment.htm>

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list