[erlang-questions] maps or records?

zxq9 zxq9@REDACTED
Mon Feb 29 16:14:11 CET 2016

On Monday 29 February 2016 11:51:00 Santiago Fernández wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@REDACTED>
> wrote:
> > I have a function hackney_url:parse_url() returning a record
> > #hackney_url{} . This record can be used internally but also externally by
> > the applications that need it. Which requires for now to include
> > "hackney_lib.hrl" . The record will likely change. On the other hands I am
> > not sure I like to have to import the include file to get its definition
> > (or copy this definition in another file, or just use the tuple) .
> You can provide functions to access data in #hackney_url{}, like this:
> hackney:get_host(Url)
> and it isn't required to include hackney_lib.hrl in client code.

I generally prefer this in most cases (not all, though -- sometimes you really
do want a big hash). The most important thing to me about it is that you can
isolate your promises from your implementations over time. It is a little more
work to set up, of course, but it prevents you and all your users from having
to perform major project surgery if you wind up realizing that something else
is really the way to structure the data.

I'm not overly crazy about -type vs -opaque, but it really *is* nice sometimes
to reap the benefits of paying for a solid data abstraction up front.

But sometimes its totally overkill. Figuring out which situation you're in is
the trick. And I'm terrible at it, so I prefer to err on the side of caution,
but then project deadlines... (>.<)


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list