[erlang-questions] Which EEP would you pick as the most important one to implement next?

Fri Aug 31 16:39:35 CEST 2012

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Vlad Dumitrescu <vladdu55@REDACTED> wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:42 PM,  <ok@REDACTED> wrote:
>>> I'm surprised implementing frames is not an EEP. This is definitely the
>>> most lacking feature of erlang by far.
>>
>> It would have been, but by the time I was ready to submit it
>> as one, there was a hard requirement that EEPS be marked up
>> in a basically undefined formalism, and a number of things I
>> needed to mark up, I could not figure out how to mark up.
>> That requirement terminated my contribution to EEPs.
>>
>> I learned RUNOFF.  I learned SCRIBE.  I learned Troff.  I
>> learned TeX.  I learned LaTeX.  I learned Lout.  I learned
>> SGML, HTML, XML, XHTML, ...  I'm willing to learn any markup
>> notation that has a tolerably complete tolerably accurate
>> manual.  Markdown, however, does not.
>
> This is certainly not what the EEP maintainers would really like to
> see, but any valid HTML that can be found inside a <body> tag is also
> valid Markdown. The weird formalism are just shortcuts for commonly
> used structures. So technically, you could write contents of the EEP
> in plain HTML and it will follow the letter of the EEP guidelines. You
> only have to add the EEP headers and some delimiters.
>
> Please don't let this detail delay a most needed proposal!

Agreed. Also, Richard, you might try writing your proposal in
something other than markdown, something that gives you what you're
aiming for, and then using pandoc to convert it to markdown for
submission -- see http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/ if you're not
familiar with pandoc.

--steve