[erlang-questions] Extensions to comprehensions eeps

Hynek Vychodil <>
Thu Jul 31 09:40:01 CEST 2008


On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 3:41 AM, Richard A. O'Keefe <>wrote:

> The statement
>
>>
>> The funny symbols are a kind of type annotation by stealth that is quite
>> irregular in the language.
>>
>
> applies just as strongly to the existing distinction between
> <- and <= .  Would {<-} be better if written the Clean way as <-: ?
> How would that be any less "type annotation by stealth"?
>
> If it comes to that, how is the distinction between '/' and 'div'
> not "type annotation by stealth".
>
> Let's have some serious comments, please.
>
>
> 1/2.
0.5
> 1 div 2.
0

There is functional difference, between <- and <= is not functional
difference.
There is not reason why

[X || <<X>> <- <<"abc">> ].

should not return same result as

 > [X || <<X>> <= <<"abc">> ].
"abc"

{<-} and other are only more useless syntactic sugar. Oops, it is not sugar
it is bitter.

-- 
--Hynek (Pichi) Vychodil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20080731/cf6a46d9/attachment.html>


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list