Torben, I have fully specified the types for the ec_dictionary and all of its implementations. I had to dig into the implementations themselves for some of the modules (gb_trees, orddict, dict, etc). That makes a bit nervous of course, but there really isn't any other option if we want things to be right. Take a look and let me know what you think.
Eric On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Eric Merritt <[email protected]> wrote: > I can do that torben. We have the ec_gb_trees module and we can place > any additional type information we need there, the same for our other > implementations. That should work I suspect/hope. I may need to play > around to get it right but I don't forsee it being a problem. > > I guess this will mean us providing more specific types for the gb > tress structures. and then using those types in our app. I think that > will work and I can take a look at proper_gb_trees to see what it does. > > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 09:21:49PM +0100, Torben Hoffmann wrote: >> 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 <[1][email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Torben, >> >> What do you think the next steps are on our types project? >> Eric >> >> -- >> [2]http://www.linkedin.com/in/torbenhoffmann >> >> References >> >> Visible links >> 1. mailto:[email protected] >> 2. http://www.linkedin.com/in/torbenhoffmann > > -- > Eric Merritt > Erlang & OTP in Action (Manning) http://manning.com/logan > http://twitter.com/ericbmerritt > http://erlware.org > -- 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.
