Re: Type Specification of net:getnameinfo()

Thanks a lot Nicolas.

Will go through, and then may be express my hunch that this is a way in
which details are either leaking and/or is not sufficient at the level of a
type spec. But who knows I endup correcting myself after a little follow up.

नमस्ते।
नलिन रंजन

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021, 10:05 PM Nicolas Martyanoff <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 2021-01-26 21:46, Nalin Ranjan wrote:
> > 2. In this particular case of type specification, the only difference is
> in
> > one of the parameters of the function. I was also wondering if we could
> > have used a union instead to write the same type spec, it would have been
> > simpler?
> > For example,
> > Instead of writing a type spec like this
> >
> > -ifdef(SOME_PRAGMA_CONDITION)
> >           SomeVar :: xxx_type().
> > -else
> >          SomeVar :: yyy_type().
> >
> > We could specify the same type spec as:
> >         SomeVar :: xxx_type() | yyy_type().
> >
> > Any reason we preferred the former over the latter?
>
> If Erlang is compiled without socket support, some types will not exist at
> all. Using the preprocessor[1] makes it possible to provide specifications
> with types which actually exist, with or without socket support.
>
> [1] https://erlang.org/doc/reference_manual/macros.html
>
> --
> Nicolas Martyanoff
> http://snowsyn.net
> [email protected]
>