Richard A. O'Keefe
Mon May 13 07:26:47 CEST 2013
On 11/05/2013, at 2:34 AM, Loïc Hoguin wrote:
> Not dismissing it here, I'd be happy to have both, but maps are solving a problem (dict manipulation is incredibly tedious and time consuming in Erlang) while frames simply improve what we already have.
There is another EEP that I haven't finished trying to set up a *general*
solution for the "deep updates" problem. It really isn't a data structure
Maps are about three things:
- a data structure (although it appears that the data structure will be changed)
- a syntax for that data structure which makes it seem as though it is strongly
recommended as a record replacement (and that is *precisely* how Joe Armstrong
has taken it; the new book he's working on uses maps where it would otherwise
have used records or frames)
- an attempt to solve the deep updates problem.
These things can be decoupled. We can have a "deep updates" solution
that works for lists AND tuples AND records AND frames AND maps. We
can have a top notch data structure. And these things do not require
maps to use frame-like syntax.
More information about the erlang-questions