Strengthening the corresponding of supervisor

[soranoba]

• Fix a log message.
• Permit the coexistence of behavi[o]r and behavi[ou]r. (1)
• Permit the coexistence of supervisor and other behaviour. (2)

(1)

-behaviour(module_a).
-behavior(module_b).

(2)

-behaviour(supervisor).
-behaviour(module_a).

[lrascao]

With this we'll lose the ability to generate appup instructions for other behaviours

[soranoba]

In other behaviour, I think that there is nothing that it need to generate a special instruction.
As an exception, supecial process and supervisor behaviour will be able to co-exist.
(However, supecial process does not require a behaviour.)

Still do you want a change, such as the following?

generate_instruction_advanced(Name, Behaviours, _, Deps) ->
    case lists:member(supervisor, Behaviours) of
        true  -> {update, Name, supervisor};
        false -> {load_module, Name, Deps}
end

[lrascao]

What are you referring to as a supecial process?

[soranoba]

• special process
• Mod:system_code_change-4

If a module export system_code_change or code_change, it shoud have instruction that is {update, Module, {advanced, Extra}}. See also
However, it is not related to behaviour. (it related to is_code_change/1)

Modules except these and supervisor want add_module or delete_module, load_module.

[lrascao]

Thanks for the PR, i've added some notes on 9f2e697

[soranoba]

Thank you for the quick response !!