[Erlang Forums] [Erlang/OTP Proposals/Proposals: RFC] Re-visiting EEP-0055

Loïc Hoguin essen@REDACTED
Mon Apr 25 18:45:11 CEST 2022

On 25/04/2022 17:45, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> That said, it took me a *long* time to understand `=:=` because it’s a 
> complex, compound sigil (not used _that_ frequently) that I’ve never 
> seen in any other language (and I know quite a few). To _me_, `^Value -> 
> …` is clearer than `NewValue when Value =:= NewValue`. But that’s me.

It's one of the flaws that I wish could be fixed. I use =:= everywhere 
because it is more precise and it's the equivalent of == in many other 
languages. The mix and matching of integers and floats is Erlang trying 
to be too smart. Hopefully we can make == the same as =:= at some point 
and get rid of =:= and =/=. Is there even that much code that relies on 
Int == Float?

I have the same opinion on pretty much all uses of the "number" type, I 
like to keep my integers away from my floats.

Loïc Hoguin

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list