From 071b8c4470cc9f0d6bee6f00e00ca325531b4a01 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Bj=C3=B6rn=20Gustavsson?= <bjorn@erlang.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 13:55:27 +0100
Subject: Don't mention "tuple funs" at all

"Tuples funs" was removed a long time ago. There is no need to
even mention them.
---
 system/doc/efficiency_guide/functions.xml | 9 ---------
 1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)

(limited to 'system')

diff --git a/system/doc/efficiency_guide/functions.xml b/system/doc/efficiency_guide/functions.xml
index 4a8248e65c..1c34888bb5 100644
--- a/system/doc/efficiency_guide/functions.xml
+++ b/system/doc/efficiency_guide/functions.xml
@@ -183,15 +183,6 @@ explicit_map_pairs(Map, Xs0, Ys0) ->
        A fun contains an (indirect) pointer to the function that implements
        the fun.</p>
 
-       <warning><p><em>Tuples are not fun(s)</em>.
-       A "tuple fun", <c>{Module,Function}</c>, is not a fun.
-       The cost for calling a "tuple fun" is similar to that
-       of <c>apply/3</c> or worse.
-       Using "tuple funs" is <em>strongly discouraged</em>,
-       as they might not be supported in a future Erlang/OTP release,
-       and because there exists a superior alternative from R10B,
-       namely the <c>fun Module:Function/Arity</c> syntax.</p></warning>
-
        <p><c>apply/3</c> must look up the code for the function to execute
        in a hash table. It is therefore always slower than a
        direct call or a fun call.</p>
-- 
cgit v1.2.3