New EEP draft: Pinning operator ^ in patterns

zxq9 zxq9@REDACTED
Wed Jan 20 07:22:20 CET 2021

Or just don't and leave "well enough" alone.

"No" is an acceptable answer.


On 2021/01/20 12:10, Bach Le wrote:
> I rarely post but this change seems strange.
> The rule for Erlang has always been single assignment so I don't think 
> pinning is necessary.
> What if we reverse the operator and call it the "rebind" operator?
> Similar to how Elixir has to explicitly pin, Erlang has to explicitly 
> rebind.
> Borrow the "spirit" and not the exact thing.
> Let's call it "&" to avoid confusion.
> Say in a case expression and you want to introduce a new variable, 
> ignoring whatever that has appeared before, use:
> case thing() of
>      {ok, &T} -> T
> end
> No new error or warning introduced

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list