New EEP draft: Pinning operator ^ in patterns
Mon Jan 18 11:36:03 CET 2021
On 18/01/2021 10:47, Raimo Niskanen wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 02:32:21AM +0900, zxq9 wrote:
>> On 2021/01/16 0:35, Raimo Niskanen wrote:
>>> 1) Would the language be a better language with a mandatory pinning operator?
>> At the cost of *adding* something arbitrarily hard to research syntax
> There, again!.
> Someone sidetracked right off into "it is bad to add this feature".
I do not understand what you are trying to say. In my mind, if someone
thinks a feature is bad, then it doesn't make the language better for
them, and even less so if it's mandatory.
It would also be very difficult to objectively say it's an improvement
or not, because measuring the benefits in this case is not trivial as
I've previously stated. So you're only going to get subjective opinions.
Personally I'm all for the optional warning (current version of the
warning), I'm OK with the operator if it was added along with proper
local scoping but would likely not use it outside of that scenario (in
my projects), and as such I would be very unhappy if the operator was
Being able to write "A = 5, A = inc(4)." is what makes the Erlang
language the best I've used in my opinion.
So for the "mandatory" part I would say the language would become worse.
If optional, the language would become better but only if added along
with local scoping (or with a clear plan leading to local scoping,
doesn't have to be done all at once), otherwise it's not an improvement
in my opinion.
More information about the erlang-questions