[eeps] Proposal for /\ and \/ operators
Fri Feb 27 09:25:19 CET 2009
(...after a moment's confusion as to why I was
explicitly Cc:d in this case. :)
Richard O'Keefe wrote:
> Is there _anything_ about Erlang that doesn't "have a good chance
> of confusing people"? The use of '->' for something that is not
> implication? The use of '=' for something that is neither
> mathematics' symmetric equality nor Fortran's assignment? The
> requirement to write '=<' rather than '<='? The use of '==' and
> '=:=' as well as '=', where the first two are the same spelling
> as Prolog operators, but with the opposite meanings? The
> existence of three different ways to say "and" (the shortest of
> which is almost always the wrong one)? The fact that f == g is
> legal when f and g are function names, but doesn't call f or g?
> The difference between f(X) and ?MODULE:f(X)? The fact that
> function clauses end with a dot except when they don't?
> If we rejected every part of Erlang that might confuse someone,
> just about all that would remain would be 1+1. No, wait, the
> full stop at the end is confusing....
Entertaining, but in the end a rather weak argument in favour
of introducing more confusion... ;-)
> Could we reach a consensus on
> Callable without the prefix if and only if there is
> no locally defined function with the same name?
That works for me.
CTO, Erlang Training & Consulting Ltd
More information about the eeps