New EEP draft: Pinning operator ^ in patterns

Nicolas Martyanoff khaelin@REDACTED
Fri Jan 22 11:32:42 CET 2021

On 2021-01-22 11:02, Raimo Niskanen wrote:
> I am trying again, in hopefully a more civilized manner...
> By constantly repeating that your opinion would not matter and that someone
> has a plan to force this feature through you indirectly say:
> *) That the decision process for an EEP and the Technical Board at Erlang/OTP
>    at Ericsson can not be trusted to make a good decision for the Erlang
>    language and the community.
> *) That the community does not want this feature.
> This is attacking the decision process itself instead of contributing to
> the decision.  To me this feels like a way to force your point of view
> through in this decision.

Try to put yourself in the shoes of those who reject the proposal:

- From the beginning, we are being told repeatedly that our answers do not
  address the right part of the proposal, or are not valid arguments, or are
  not the right way to argue. The last evolution of the debate is a comparison
  to Trump...

- As I already asked, for all these messages we still have not received any
  information about who has real authority on this type of change to the
  language. You are talking about a "decision process", but for the time being
  I see Richard and you trying really hard to make everyone believe there is
  some kind of fair debate.

- The original proposal comes from someone who is not part of the Erlang team.
  You, as part of the Erlang team, immediately sided with him and started
  engaging with everyone in favor of the proposition. There has been talks
  about going forward with making the operator mandatory, changing scoping
  rules, still more changes... So yes, there is an agenda.

- As for "the community not wanting this feature", there are indeed lots of
  developers here who believe that this kind of change is a mistake (I'm
  obviously not talking about an optional warning, since it would not modify
  the language), I'm saying it directly because it is true.

At the end of the day, this is about a proposition which, if adopted, could
change a core aspect of the language in a non-backward compatible way and
which would force all developers all around the world to eventually change all
their code. And this is being discussed with you as single member of the
Technical Board.

If you are the only one in charge of taking the final decision, then it is
clear there is no real debate since you are obviously very much in favour. If
you are not, then there is no real point in arguing for weeks without an
official answer from the Erlang team.

Nicolas Martyanoff

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list