[erlang-questions] Strings - deprecated functions
Eric des Courtis
Fri Nov 24 15:07:11 CET 2017
>From my perspective, we want the following things:
- The libraries to stay simple, small and clean (that means throwing
- Our old code to continue to work without modifications (that means
having a mechanism for compiling old code targetting new versions of Erlang)
- To mix old and new Erlang code together
I see no reason why we can't have both. What I am not okay with is:
- Endlessly growing libraries of functions that are there for legacy
reasons (wasting space and confusing new developers)
- Fixing libraries over and over again because something got marked
So how do we get both?
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 8:37 AM, zxq9 <zxq9@REDACTED> wrote:
> On 2017年11月24日 金曜日 08:13:49 Eric des Courtis wrote:
> > While I feel the pain of Joe having suffered countless hours fixing
> > deprecation in various old libraries. I have to say there is something to
> > be said for throwing things away.
> > I can't help but think I can have my cake and eat it too. Maybe something
> > like a transpiler to compile old Erlang to new Erland and keep the Erlang
> > VM lean?
> If the new functions did what the old functions do, then sure.
> But that's not how thing have turned out.
> On reflection, I actually think the new string functions should have
> been rolled into a "utf8" module. Or something. And the "strings" module
> could either have had implementation adjustments that use the utf8
> utilities underneath or been left alone to deal with latin1 (but either
> way be amply documented).
> I'm the heaviest unicode string dealing guy I know. I'm SUPER happy that
> the idea of "string" has been advanced (finally!) to mean "unicode
> But breakage is a thing, and Lloyd and Joe have a point.
> erlang-questions mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions