Eric,
I think we should investigate if it is feasible to declare the dictionary
type as dictionary(K,V).
I have peeked inside gb_trees and there has been a hack there that provides
-opaque gb_tree() :: {non_neg_integer(), gb_tree_node()}.
and
-type gb_tree_node() :: 'nil' | {_, _, _, _}.
There is simply too little type information here to do the dictionary(K,V)
approach without doing something extra - unless I am totally of track.
I have noticed that PropEr defines modules like proper_gb_trees where all
the extra type information is there, so there must be a way to do the same
for our ec_dictionary implementations.
I will focus on the "PBT for UTers" for the time being such that the basics
are in place and we can have good discussions on what PBT is really all
about, so if you and/or others could experiment with the typing it would be
great.
Cheers,
Torben
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 16:17, Eric Merritt <[email protected]> wrote:
> Torben,
>
> What do you think the next steps are on our types project?
>
> Eric
>
--
http://www.linkedin.com/in/torbenhoffmann
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"erlware-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/erlware-dev?hl=en.
