other annotations (was: Re: New EEP draft: Pinning operator ^ in patterns)
Thu Jan 28 13:11:13 CET 2021
Den tors 28 jan. 2021 kl 11:23 skrev Loïc Hoguin <essen@REDACTED>:
> By the way, if annotations are going to be a thing, it might be a good
> idea to make them more general so we can annotate other things, such as
> "pure function" / "side effect function" or "local send" / "remote
> send". I would personally love to easily identify message sends to
> remote nodes.
These are also interesting things - maybe not inline but perhaps as
keywords on function definitions; we had some ideas about marking functions
as pure (for guards) back in the HiPE project, for example. Like any kind
of strict typing, you then get into the question about such functions in
other modules: If they can only be used locally, the feature is perhaps too
limited to be worth it. To put them in other modules, you'd probably need
to do name mangling like e.g. when linking C++, to ensure both caller and
callee are following the conventions, and that might get too messy. I don't
know anyone who has prototyped that, though, so it's not clear how it would
look and feel.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions