[erlang-questions] atoms in iodata() / iolist()

Antonio SJ Musumeci trapexit@REDACTED
Tue May 26 00:53:48 CEST 2015

Likely though it'd probably be nicer to add atoms to the definition or
create a new type.

I created a patch for iolist_to_binary and iolist_size and was looking at
ports and files next but was wondering how practical it was more generally.
On May 25, 2015 14:07, "Fred Hebert" <mononcqc@REDACTED> wrote:

On 05/25, Richard Carlsson wrote:

> Yes, I think it was a mistake not to include atoms in iolists to begin with
> (funnily, filenames can be deep and include atoms, but iolists can't). It
> might be pretty hard to change though, since there is so much existing code
> that might crash if it stumbled over an atom in a list that was produced by
> more modern code.
> Several functions in the standard libraries become needlessly expensive
> because of this need to expand atoms before they can be included in
> iolists, even when the result is just going to be sent directly to a file
> or port.
>  I would have expected it more reasonable to remove atoms from these than
to add them everywhere.

erlang-questions mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20150525/8b2e2bb5/attachment.htm>

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list