Normalize MS map_ BIF names and document grammar.#3
Open
christhekeele wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Picked up and played with erlang#7326 a little @sverker, here's a PR form of some of my thoughts.
Renames
maps_putandmaps_removetomap_putandmap_removeThe reasoning being:
map_getcall allowed in matchspecs today is singularmap_getBIF in theerlangmodule; in the future if map put/remove BIFs are added toerlangthey would be named similarly tooAllows
map_putandmap_removein trace matchspec bodiesmessagein certain trace patternsSeparates these functions from action functions in both documentation and implementation
Updates the matchspec grammar docs