user-defined operators

Valentin <>
Thu Apr 1 08:24:07 CEST 2004


Insulting other people is saying even less about Arain controversy... let's
put our over-inflated egos aside and go back to the reasons as to why would
Erlang need ability to support user-defined operators.
Personally, I think that user-defined-anything is not such a great idea,
because inherently leads to more difficulties in understanding other people
code, and ability to do this *fast* is a very important thing if you want to
sustain a product/system/whatever beyond two months. On the other hand, I
like to keep my mind open...but, cynicism does not sell good ideas.

Valentin.

PS
Arian controversy is not realy a controversy... it is much easear to
understand it than, say, holy trinity.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard A. O'Keefe" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 3:18 AM
Subject: Re: user-defined operators


> 2 > Nor does it say anything about the Arian controversy, bimetallism, or
the
> 2 > interpretation of quantum mechanics.  Why should one little definition
have
> 2 > to deal with quite irrelevant matters?
>




More information about the erlang-questions mailing list