[erlang-questions] If you are homesick for object.selector

[Fred Hebert]

I'm not making a judgement call on any of it, whether it's worth it or
not or something to aim for, at least not in that post.

It just striked me as somewhat peculiar to ask to change the
associativity of one of the most basic operators of a language to be
able to get something that looks different/shorter to call functions
around following countless arguments on the same topic in the last few
days.

I don't know why making calls chainable that way is *that* desirable, as
I tend to prefer unambiguous (even if verbose) code to optimized code
throughput on a per-character basis,  but Evan Miller certainly desires
it a whole damn lot. He's got to make that square peg fit real hard :)

Regards,
Fred

On 01/24, Max Lapshin wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Fred Hebert <mononcqc@REDACTED> wrote:
> 
> > On 01/24, Evan Miller wrote:
> > > Cost = Character:weapon():ability():cost()
> > >
> > > While laughing maniacally and dancing around a burning pyre of Prolog
> > books
> >
> > I can't help myself thinking you're one of the most dedicated people
> > working on making the square peg fit the seemingly round hole on this
> > mailing list :)
> >
> 
> 
> Evan develops one of the most developed and most widely used ORM on Erlang,
> so you have to admit that he definitely has success in this complicated
> task.