Re: pengines extension to html_requires

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Jan Wielemaker <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 02/09/2014 01:23 PM, Torbjörn Lager wrote:

>> I agree. I'm not sure which ones though. Perhaps pengine_send/3?
>> Hmm, pengine_pull_response/2 is special. Normally, it won't be used by
>> application programmers, but since the JS lib uses it, and since you
>
> But the js lib uses it though the HTTP handlers that are in the same
> module.  No need to export them, is there?

No, you are right.

>> often need it if you want to program a high-level predicate (e.g. a
>> new kind of event loop) on top of the core predicates, it cannot be
>> made private.
>
> Yes, I think you want to be able to program pengine_rpc/3 if it would
> not have existed.  That indicates you need pengine_event/1 and
> pengine_pull_response/2 exported.

Yes.

>> Do you have any other predicates in mind that can be made private?
>
> A quick glance most indicates pengine_send/2,3.  Also because you can
> simply upset the protocol by sending other terms to the pengines.  I'll
> remove them from the exports.
...

> P.s.    I would also not be against removing almost all the versions
>         without options.  That almost halves the number of exported
>         predicates and thus makes it quicker to assess the functionality
>         of the interface.  Anyone?

I'm not sure. Predicates such as pengine_next/2 and pengine_stop/2
will only very seldom be used with options. Having to nearly always
have [] in the second argument would be unhelpful. And since
pengine_ask/3 belongs to the same family, isn't it more consistent to
keep pengine_ask/2 as well?

I guess some versions without options can go, but I don't think that
we want to reduce them with nearly half.

Cheers,
Torbjörn

-- 
Torbjörn Lager
Professor of General and Computational Linguistics
Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science
University of Gothenburg
Box 200, SE-405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden
Phone: +46317864962