New EEP draft: Pinning operator ^ in patterns
Fri Jan 22 13:21:18 CET 2021
On 22/01/2021 12:57, zxq9 wrote:
> On 2021/01/22 18:09, Raimo Niskanen wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 02:28:35AM +0900, zxq9 wrote:
>>> On 2021/01/22 1:43, Tristan Sloughter wrote:
>>>> I've tried to just say my piece and leave it at that (summary: not a
>>>> but would be nice to have a way to match in fun heads/list
>>>> comprehensions where variables are shadowed) but have to say that after
>>>> seeing these examples I'm starting to lean towards agreeing with
>>> I'm the opposite, but it probably doesn't matter.
>> Why should it not matter?
>> What might matter would be stating good arguments for one's reasoning.
>>> Someone has an immaculate plan.
>> Instead of such statements.
> [deep breath]
> Here is how this goes.
> You say "Make an argument"
> I do. Many do.
> You say "Well, I don't feel that addresses X"
> We address X directly.
> "Well, that's not what I meant so derpy-doo let's just go with the plan!"
There's no plans, we're here to discuss the merits of the proposal, and
its implications for the future. It's also OK to reject a proposal based
on feelings but probably less productive.
Let's please keep the discussion on topic though. It's big enough as it is.
More information about the erlang-questions