[Erlang Forums] [Erlang/OTP Proposals/Proposals: RFC] Re-visiting EEP-0055
Mon Apr 25 01:38:04 CEST 2022
From the EEP, which is about "pinning operators" (will the nonsense
> In Erlang, they would be optional
So why would you even want this? The entire idea is stupid, *implies* a
break with the basic rules already built into the language, and appears
to be nothing more than a way to roadmap the destruction of Erlang over
time with gee-whiz glyphy syntax of the sort which Erlang has been thus
far generally free.
That's a big "NO" from me on this EEP, but I imagine anyone could have
already guessed that. Thanks for the heads up. I don't expect sanity to
prevail over time -- it is just the trend of the times -- but it was
interesting to at least see this mentioned to those of us still
subscribed to the bad dirty old ML.
On 2022/04/21 21:32, Leonard Boyce wrote:
> I'm copying the Erlang Questions ML with this post since there was
> significant and heated discussion regarding this EEP and not all ML
> subscribers have joined the forum.
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 10:20 PM Bryan Paxton via Erlang Forums
> <noreply@REDACTED> wrote:
>> starbelly EEF Board
>> April 21
>> EEP-0055 (https://github.com/erlang/eep/blob/master/eeps/eep-0055.md) was submitted on
>> An accompanying implementation (https://github.com/erlang/otp/pull/2951) was submitted in which a lot of conversation ensued.
>> It was decided that the EEP would not be set for inclusion in OTP-24, per the time table at that juncture and that it would be revisited prior to OTP-25. OTP-25 is now at a point where this is not possible.
>> That said, I wanted to start a topic here about the EEP and gun for inclusion in OTP-26.
>> I would point to @kennethL’s last comment (https://github.com/erlang/otp/pull/2951#issuecomment-770878570) on the PR as a starting point for discussion.
>> I suppose my overarching question here is : Is this still on the table? And if so, what are the road blocks? Kenneth pointed out some possible roadblacks that needed investigation, but it’s not clear to me what happened after that.
>> Of course, since I’m raising this topic, I’m obviously in favor of the operator I’d also be happy to work to drive it forward.
>> Visit Topic or reply to this email to respond.
>> You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode.
>> To unsubscribe from these emails, click here.
More information about the erlang-questions