[erlang-questions] Which EEP would you pick as the most important one to implement next?
Fri Aug 31 20:09:09 CEST 2012
On 08/31/2012 05:39 PM, Steve Vinoski wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Vlad Dumitrescu <> wrote:
>> Hi Richard,
>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:42 PM, <> 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.
> erlang-questions mailing list
Richard, if all these methods fail then I volunteer to learn all the
needed markdown and do the conversion for you.
More information about the erlang-questions