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...
More information about the erlang-questions