Structure? leaf : fail; (was: New EEP [...])

[empro2@REDACTED]

:-)

On [compiled for brevity] zxq9 <zxq9@REDACTED> wrote:

>> I absolutely believe that Raimo and Richard are acting in good faith.
>> They both care about Erlang and have put a lot into it over the years.

    ("I've never told you, now I suppose
      that you're the only one who doesn't know" :-)


>> The framing, assumptions, and what appears to be somewhat opaque
>> procedure is the rub, not the idea that someone came up with a proposal

The framing might be perceived as apparent, but it is far from being evident. Assumptions? repeated claims? instead of arguments ('reasons', not 'argumentations', least: 'quarrel')^{*1} -> ok, but:


>> for how to patch over one of the few warts in the language.

    "We tend to become like the worst in those we oppose."
      -- Frank Herbert, _Chapterhouse: Dune_

But why I write:


> HAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAA!!!
> [deep breath]
> HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    "**Wicked child!!**"

Don't you know that a top-down-approach like that is the work of Beelzebub!!

(And I rarely use double exclamation marks!!)


> Hopefully people are still at least having fun.

Why hope? not see to it? _I_ hope that I am taken serious, I have found gems of wisdom even in what at first seemed to be the silliest of pun. Don't take the wrapping for the present! _I_ (can only) hope I have not encouraged such ... `-behaviour(wicked_child)`!


> Discussions about changes that touch close to core principles cut deep,

Yes. (And it put a whole story about Michelangelo in my head, but this is already growing long again.)


> so they get a bit heated, but this is a long tradition on mailing lists

No! they do not! Not until someone actively adds a jar of Dragonfire. Thus it is also no consequece ("so").


> > > It's the internet. Friendly fire is to be expected.

No need to fire, see how you sneak in claims, too? "We tend to become ..."


> > > We all wake from the dream eventually.

    "We all bleed and we smile"


> Why not discuss eliminating shadowing entirely? Is there some reason

Because: different discussion. EEP 55 should have(!) to show its effects on shadowing and a possible later removement of it. I was already looking into this when someone lighted a fuse around here. So far I have found only R. Virding telling ROK (complaining about shadowing) that "all the others FLs did it", and "The problem with an evolving language."

But you don't say, 'Oh, look! my melanoma is evolving.' There was a line somewhere in the EEP pages about Erlang being used in millions of lines of code and backwards compatibiliy. This negates almost all selection pressure, and cripples "evolution" into 'incremental growth'.


> this suggestion has not been addressed at all? It is a curious omission
> given that it has been brought up multiple times.

There is many a thing miss and awry. I, too, miss, very desperately, this, at least:

    "The EEP author should listen to the community's feeback
     and edit the EEP as necessary."

I have compiled a few thoughts on that somewhere.

    ~Michael

Blast! almost forgot the best:

*1 This is a good example for to see how bad the idea of rebinding can be.

--

Normality is merely a question of quantity,
not of quality.

Normalität ist nur eine Frage von Quantität,
nicht von Qualität.