On 01/26/2012 09:07 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
On Jan 25, 2012, at 2:49 AM, Manu wrote:
On 23 January 2012 02:00, Timon Gehr<[email protected]> wrote:
Erlang *has* been used in multiple large projects and it is likely that you
make use of some service that is powered by erlang on a daily basis. It is
successful in its niche. Copying its message passing API is reasonable and
safe: Its concurrency model is the main selling point of erlang.
http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/112417/real-world-applications-of-erlang
Oh come on.. It's niche, unfamiliar to most people, and we're talking about
name and argument list clarity with respect to what would be instinctive to the
most users, not 'model' or API design, that's obviously fine.
Personally, I expected receiveOnly to see infrequent use compared to receive.
At least in my own code, it's rare that I'd want a receive call to throw if
there's any message in the queue other than the one I'm looking for. So the
naming scheme was a mistaken assumption of popular use.
It is not necessarily a mistaken assumption. I still assume it.
