[erlang-questions] What is this OOP-like construction doing in Erlang?

Fred Hebert mononcqc@REDACTED
Mon Nov 4 16:46:39 CET 2013

This is history!

So for a long while, Erlang had something called tuple funs, way before
it had funs of the form 'fun Mod:Fun/Arity' or 'fun Fun/arity'. This
format would allow you to represent funs as {Module, Fun}.

At some point, Richard Carlsson proposed adding parametrized modules to
Erlang. This would be done by re-using that functionality at runtime,
and some compiler trickery so that a module could be declared as
'-module(Mod, [Arg1, Arg2, ..., ArgN]).', and have a 'new' function
which would return an opaque '{Mod, Args}' tuple.

All functions of that module would have the implicit 'Args' list of
argument, allowing to have globally defined arguments, themselves
instantiated as part of the New function, iirc.

At runtime, the VM would take that tuple call and insert the arguments
in there.

Then the Erlang community (myself included) got upset as more and more
projects used that form, because it would introduce subtle
inconsistencies in expectations -- for example, there was an implicit
change of function arity of functions that made tracing a pain, and some
unexpected shadowing when you worked with some functions.

This has been debated a whole lot, and the OTP team ended up making a
decision where they'd drop the parametrized modules feature from the
official language (along with packages and whatnot).

This deprecation came with a parse transform being released with the OTP
team and the addition of the tuple call idiom so that projects using
parametrized modules wouldn't suddenly be left impossible to upgrade on
many VMs.

This again didn't make everyone happy, but in the end, it's the
situation we're in and that's why tuple calls are supported there. We're
far from the original roots, but that's why it's there.


On 11/04, Raphael Korsoski wrote:
> I was writing some object oriented code over the weekend and upon returning
> to my Erlang coding, I accidentally discovered this rather odd construction:
>     ....
>     Dict = lists:foldr(...), % dict construction
>     lists:map(fun(...) -> ... end, Dict:to_list()  <<-- WHUT?!
> Testing it, it seems that the runtime has the following convention;
> If T is a tuple, then the Mod:Fun(Args) construction T:Fun(Args) will in
> fact be interpreted as element(1,T):Fun(Args, T).
> I would expect something like that in an OO language; although the
> convention in every language I have used is then to pass the 'self'
> reference as the _first_ argument. What is this construction doing in
> Erlang?
> An example:
> Erlang R16B01 (erts-5.10.2) [source] [64-bit halfword] [smp:32:32]
> [async-threads:10] [kernel-poll:false] [systemtap]
> Eshell V5.10.2  (abort with ^G)
> 1> T = {erlang, foo, bar, baz}.
> {erlang,foo,bar,baz}
> 2> T:tuple_to_list().
> [erlang,foo,bar,baz]
> 3>
> BRs,
> Raphael K

> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list