uwiger
commented
12 years ago Hi Dmitry,
Not a bad idea, although I'd suggest gproc:send/2 instead.
I'll take a closer look later.
BR, Ulf
Den onsdagen den 23:e november 2011 skrev Dmitry Demeshchuk< reply@reply.github.com
: The idea is to allow writing statements like this:
<<"Process1">> ! Message
Erlang compiler does allow such stuff, but of course a badarg expection will be raised.
I've written a sample parse transform that transforms such constructions into
gproc:lookup_local_name(<<"Process1">>) ! Message
https://github.com/doubleyou/ptrans/tree/gproc
Of course, this need to be improved (like handling global process registry as well), but at least it gives a basic idea. I'm also not sure where to place it, maybe it's better as a part of gproc itself rather than a separate module.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/uwiger/gproc/issues/11
doubleyou
The idea is to allow writing statements like this:
<<"Process1">> ! Message
Erlang compiler does allow such stuff, but of course a badarg expection will be raised.
I've written a sample parse transform that transforms such constructions into
gproc:lookup_local_name(<<"Process1">>) ! Message
https://github.com/doubleyou/ptrans/tree/gproc
Of course, this need to be improved (like handling global process registry as well), but at least it gives a basic idea. I'm also not sure where to place it, maybe it's better as a part of gproc itself rather than a separate module.