New EEP draft: Pinning operator ^ in patterns

Wed Jan 20 18:33:57 CET 2021


(This is one of the fruits of all this, removes the awkward addressing issue and might prevent real misunderstandings by setting some positive mood.)

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 11:26:56 +0100
Raimo Niskanen <raimo+erlang-questions@REDACTED> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 01:50:00AM +0100, empro2@REDACTED wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 13:16:54 +0100
> > Raimo Niskanen <raimo+erlang-questions@REDACTED> wrote:

> >
> That was mostly too long for me, did not read it all, could not follow all your
> cultural and technical references and trains of thought, so it might have
> been slightly, as we say in Swedish: "to sprinkle salt in the wounds".

Yes, long, and it is completely fine to ignore it, as it was the part for the list. And if it turns out to be too long for everyone, my idea of compiling recognisable arguments was ... well, not exactly bad :-)

When while trying to put together an expression, a suitable phrasing pops up, I check whether it expresses what I want to say and use the effort saved for the next one. The words can be read as if there was no typesetting. There is no need to go get the context, on the contrary, it would destroy the meaning (completely different context!) I am aware that this is not obvious, but I hope that those who do not want to waste their time, simply do not, and that it causes an occasional smile. Assessment may change.

> > was intended for the list (mostly, oc). I tried (but failed) to make it a reply to
> I did not notice no strangeness in To:, Cc:, etc...

As it was a compilation of accumulating separate replies, I probably have simply edited the text into the wrong draft, thus: wrong `In-Reply-To:`, wrong `References:` (as I dug up this morning).

> Oh.  I missed that completely!  I still fall make the same mistake, it seems I
> can not learn ;-) how it is supposed to be.  I am sorry I had forgotten who's
> contirbution that was.

As it was only a side remark, I did not put it at the top. I cannot see any mistake on your side.

Be glad! if you "can not learn", there is the alternative that you also 'can learn'; if you "cannot learn", then you are simply not able to learn.

> I think you were overthinking...

Turns out I were! I had spent hours trying to clear up what seemed to be an important misunderstanding. That modified my thinking context.

> I suspect that the cultural impedance mismatch between different backgrounds
> on a mailing list like this makes tiny details like that insignificant.  The
> mistakes we make might be blatant ones we cannot see so there might be
> little point in pondering over small nuances that probably will go unnoticed.

Thought so until yesterday -- and from now on again :-)) I still try, though, not to be negligent; I am still trying, for example, to get rid of ROK's "naked mole rats"*, lest they tumble out one day and cause harmed feelings :-)


> > What was said, is not what was spoken,
> > but what was understood; and none of these
> > comes necessarily close to what was meant.
> I love that!  Where does that quote come from?

Intermediate result of the ongoing computation of `yes no yes no yes no = 101010 = 42`.

I simply put an observation into words. As it has often turned out, that someone else, somewhere else, sometime much earlier has already done the same, I do not cling too much to such. Pity such things are not taught, by parents and teachers. Much more useful than integral calculus for most ... And I do not like to waste time on repeating work that has already been done.



Curiosity killed the cat -
by simply using up its time.

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list