Why, for example, maps but array?
Lloyd R. Prentice
lloyd@REDACTED
Sun Aug 15 00:42:40 CEST 2021
Hi Michael,
I just used sets today to write a search tag generator. Works. But it surprises me that obvious functions like file:move/2 and the a write companion to file:consult/1 are not in the library. No doubt someone has an explanation.
Today I wanted to pull a list of search words out of a file and turn the list into a function. I’m sure it’s simple but beyond my pay grade. Somewhat confused that some file functions require filenames and others IoDevice.
Re if constructions, I turn first to pattern matching, next to case statements. But I suspect there’s a cogent discussion buried in the Erlang archives.
I’m a dilettante, but hack on with purpose.
Best,
LRP
Sent from my iPad
> On Aug 14, 2021, at 6:27 PM, Michael P. <empro2@REDACTED> wrote:
>
> When writing Erlang, my brain always produces:
> array, filename, list, map, ..., but not:
> lists, maps, proplists, sets, ....
>
> I cannot imagine that anyone applies the
> general concept of 'module deals with lists'
> to writing a concrete line of source code.
>
> To me `+` is 'addition', not 'additions'.
>
> There is even orddict but ordsets ...
>
> ... that corresponds to dict but sets.
>
> The decision seems to depend on author
> and some tossing of coins.
>
> Can there be learned anything from that?
>
>
> ~Michael
>
> --
>
> The story of the Ministry of funny Operators:
>
> := new walrus
> ;= winking walrus
> ?:= confused walrus
> :,= weeping walrus
> X= extinct walrus
>
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the erlang-questions
mailing list