New EEP draft: Pinning operator ^ in patterns
Tue Jan 19 16:39:35 CET 2021
>I am sorry, I was in a bad mood and interpreted your "that the proposed
change is not backward compatible" as you had not read the EEP since it
states up front under "Backwards Compatibility" that "This change is
therefore fully backwards compatible".
>> backward incompatibility? Yes or no?
> It should be obvious to anyone that has read this thread that that
question can not be answered with a simple yes or no.
This is true and sorry for asking it in such a way. Erlang is by far my
favourite platform and environment and its simplicity is huge part of its
appeal so when in my mind this simplicity is in danger I can overreact.
Anyway I agree that the proposal, even when extended in future in line with
further discussion here will not introduce a compatibility problem. The only
problem I see in the proposal is that it is against the extreme simplicity
of Erlang language. But this problem is significant to me and because of if
I would prefer it the proposal is not implemented. I'll live if it is, but I
think Erlang would be a worse language with pinning than it is without it.
More information about the erlang-questions