[erlang-questions] Pipe, maybe, and other silly parse transforms

Richard A. O'Keefe <>
Mon Apr 3 03:16:54 CEST 2017


> On 3/04/2017, at 12:23 AM, Fred Hebert <> wrote:
> - the 'cut' syntax is bound in context a bit more, which lets me work  around this Erlando issue I had opened in 2011  https://github.com/rabbitmq/erlando/issues/2 (props to them for never  closing it in anger)

I have a resurrection of Pop-2 that I've been working on in my spare time.
(Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.  Back then it was lime-flavoured.)
Think of a cross between Lisp data, Algol syntax, and a Forth/Postscript-
like visible stack designed in the 1960s.

As part of spiffing that up, I've been looking through the SRFIs for ideas
to steal.  I can across 'cut' and 'cute' and thought, hmmm.
It turns out that there is one lambda-expression every 11 SLOC
Only about 5% of those could use 'cut' or 'cute'.

I came to the conclusion that it is MUCH better not to have 'cut'/'cute'.




More information about the erlang-questions mailing list