Received: by 10.204.4.211 with SMTP id 19mr640914bks.5.1350255462025; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:57:42 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: erlang-programming@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.147.6 with SMTP id j6ls102947bkv.9.gmail; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:57:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.205.123.145 with SMTP id gk17mr640936bkc.2.1350255461679; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:57:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.205.123.145 with SMTP id gk17mr640935bkc.2.1350255461624; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:57:41 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from hades.cslab.ericsson.net (hades.cslab.ericsson.net. [192.121.151.104]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id v13si1384202bkw.0.2012.10.14.15.57.41; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:57:41 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of erlang-questions-boun...@erlang.org designates 192.121.151.104 as permitted sender) client-ip=192.121.151.104; Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of erlang-questions-boun...@erlang.org designates 192.121.151.104 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=erlang-questions-boun...@erlang.org Received: from hades.cslab.ericsson.net (hades [192.121.151.104]) by hades.cslab.ericsson.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 370BE5C102; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 00:57:37 +0200 (CEST) X-Original-To: erlang-questi...@erlang.org Delivered-To: erlang-questi...@erlang.org Received: from zimbra.idea.cz (fw.idea.cz [212.67.69.10]) by hades.cslab.ericsson.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49E665C014 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 00:57:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.idea.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F9B91A6288; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 00:57:18 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.idea.cz Received: from zimbra.idea.cz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.idea.cz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cGjpDeGVWFA0; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 00:57:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from zimbra.idea.cz (zimbra.idea.cz [10.2.6.51]) by zimbra.idea.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 333FC1A628A; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 00:57:18 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 00:57:18 +0200 (CEST) From: Tomas Morstein To: glebe...@gmail.com Message-ID: <33182aa7-173b-4be9-8273-492cc6f14399@zimbra> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: erlang-questi...@erlang.org Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] (Non)Parametrized modules, inheritance, and R15B02 issues? X-BeenThere: erlang-questi...@erlang.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: General Erlang/OTP discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: erlang-questions-boun...@erlang.org Sender: erlang-questions-boun...@erlang.org > Given that the underlying mechanism stays, and only the syntactical > conveniences are under threat: to what extent can the current pmod > handling be replaced by / emulated with a parse_transform? I think this is exactly what Ulf meant by the code presented on Github. We also do some transforms in our database project, so we can do one more new easily, but it has some limitations. > If it's possible to do it that way, that might provide the best of > two worlds: the existence of the pmod feature without having the > maintenance burden in the compiler. It's just a few minutes I was remsh-connected to a live system and did some manual data updates of our data objects (based on pmods). AFAIK, this wouldn't be possible with transforms, so transforms are only partial solution, if we'll simply omit their other disadvantages. I'd wait for what OTP team is going to publish within the upcoming week.. _______________________________________________ erlang-questions mailing list erlang-questi...@erlang.org http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions