I am close to using a behaviour as a pure interface and I feel dirty...
Tue Aug 24 23:53:55 CEST 2021
I'm not entirely sure if this will help but a while back I wrote two
articles and gave a talk about this subject. But I might have faced it from
a different angle.
These are the links:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 at 23:47 Brett Hemes <brhemes@REDACTED> wrote:
> > Erlang's behaviour is NOT an interface!
> > If you are looking for some analogy from other languages the closest one
> is abstract classes in C#.
> This isn’t very helpful... it is the exact same response I find in the
> forums with no reasoning behind it. I don’t need analogies either; I
> understand what behaviours are “supposed” to be from the documentation and
> comments (perhaps this wasn’t made clear by my post). Where I fall short
> is “why” are behaviours limited to such and why aren’t more people asking
> the same questions I am stuck on (regarding polymorphism)? My logic was:
> yes, this has been asked and discussed some in the past with no real
> resolution that I could find... therefore, users must be content/accepting
> of the tools provided. I am not so naive to think I am the first to
> need/want such, so there must be a disconnect.
> I posted my example to motivate my questioning hoping for some insight
> and/or comfort. As of now, I have proceeded with storing “meta refs” to my
> child servers that are module/reference tuples (along with some dangerous
> and future-maintenance-issue-causing assumptions regarding their
> “interface”)... and it’s works... it just smells, and I am always eager to
> learn and find the right/better/best way.
> Aside: a colleague came across this repo (
> https://github.com/eldarko/epolymorph) while digging and the readme seems
> to capture my use case almost exactly...
Sent from Gmail Mobile by Brujo Benavides
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions