I will pull your implementation and look at it while I continue on the tutorial.
Cheers, Torben On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 17:06, Eric Merritt <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > -- 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.
