New EEP draft: Pinning operator ^ in patterns

Michael P. empro2@REDACTED
Sat Jan 30 11:20:34 CET 2021

:-) % Deprecated, going to be removed soon, superfluous
    % ... and a bit "childish" ... :-)

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 17:40:49 +0100
Loïc Hoguin <essen@REDACTED> wrote:

> But I would not be OK if Erlang allowed this:
>    Config = case get_config() of
>        undefined -> default_config();
>        Config -> [{extra, value}|Config]
>    end

Too late?

    "Zazou, comment allez-vous?"

8> Conf = case [3] of
8>     undefined -> [1];
8>     Newconf -> [2 | Newconf] end.
9> Conf.
    "Or am I losing my mind?"

> should not add more. Better yet if this shadowing becomes completely
> forbidden. Then there's no confusion to be had about which variable ^

Somewhere in the archive R. Virding told ROK
that every FL did shadow, but, alas!, not why.

Can shadowing not "simply be ignored"?
because of what I described in C6 in

? I get a warning, think of a better name --
take the opportunity to reflect on what I am doing! --
done: no shadowing.

I am growing an impression that people name terms,
or even types, instead of purposes.

    "Or am I losing my mind?"



Reasonable is that which cannot
be criticised reasonably anymore.

Vernüftig ist das, was nicht mehr
vernünftig kritisiert werden kann.

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list