Re: Suicide by module_info
Richard Carlsson <[email protected]> Sun, 26 Apr 2015 22:46:54 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.erlang.bugs |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CANKG3zkc2mXTyL=Dis60vdhPjLJ=kpa1gkK6MyiDcC+S_k8udg@mail.gmail.com> |
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Tuncer Ayaz <[email protected]> wrote: > Could it be that erlang:get_module_info/1 is undocumented and > therefore underused? I don't think I ever called get_module_info/1 and > I suspect everyone just uses foo:module_info/0,1, which interestingly > works after a successful code:delete(foo) call. > > The crash is a bug, but this might explain how it went unnoticed. > > Do you think the following is the right behavior? > > > c(foo). > {ok,foo} > > code:delete(foo). > true > > foo:module_info(). > [{module,foo}, > ...] > > I mean, I would expect fully qualified calls to foo:module_infi/0 to > fail once code:delete(foo) succeeds. Or is this how it's supposed to > behave? > That's how things are supposed to work. If the foo is deleted when you call foo:module_info(), it will simply get reloaded and then called, just as if foo had not been previously loaded at all. _______________________________________________ erlang-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-bugs