New EEP draft: Pinning operator ^ in patterns
Tue Jan 19 13:25:18 CET 2021
>> I agree 100%. The most problematic part for me is that the proposed
>> change is not backward compatible. I saw arguments that it will impact
>> only small
> And here come another one...
> Read the proposal. Read about possible migrations,
> optionallity, migration paths, and related, before posting.
I have read the proposal. Yes I understand that it is supposed to be not in
one go, initially optional, migration paths are proposed etc. In the similar
straightforward way in which you accused me of discussing something I did
not read about can you answer a question please? Does the proposal introduce
backward incompatibility? Yes or no?
More information about the erlang-questions