Re: Why, for example, maps but array?

Hi Michael,

I just used sets today to write a search tag generator. Works. But it surprises me that obvious functions like file:move/2 and the a write companion to file:consult/1 are not in the library. No doubt someone has an explanation.

Today I wanted to pull a list of search words out of a file and turn the list into a function. I’m sure it’s simple but beyond my pay grade.  Somewhat confused that some file functions require filenames and others IoDevice.

Re if constructions, I turn first to pattern matching, next to case statements. But I suspect there’s a cogent discussion buried in the Erlang archives. 

I’m a dilettante, but hack on with purpose.

Best,

LRP

Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 14, 2021, at 6:27 PM, Michael P. <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> When writing Erlang, my brain always produces:
> array, filename, list, map, ..., but not:
> lists, maps, proplists, sets, ....
> 
> I cannot imagine that anyone applies the
> general concept of 'module deals with lists'
> to writing a concrete line of source code.
> 
> To me `+` is 'addition', not 'additions'.
> 
> There is even orddict but ordsets ...
> 
> ... that corresponds to dict but sets.
> 
> The decision seems to depend on author
> and some tossing of coins.
> 
> Can there be learned anything from that?
> 
> 
> ~Michael
> 
> --
> 
> The story of the Ministry of funny Operators:
> 
> :=    new walrus
> ;=    winking walrus
> ?:=   confused walrus
> :,=   weeping walrus
> X=    extinct walrus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>