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

Michael Truog mjtruog@REDACTED
Mon Apr 25 20:24:33 CEST 2022

On 4/24/22 16:38, zxq9 wrote:
> From the EEP, which is about "pinning operators" (will the nonsense
> cease?):
> > 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.

That motivation to add the "pinning operator" to Erlang is really 
motivation to create a smaller function where the pinning operator is 
not necessary.

Adding the "pinning operator" to Erlang would not improve the language, 
because the operator's intent is to help people create larger more 
complex functions.  This fundamental problem can not be ignored by 
creating a new mailing list discussion thread.

Don't fear the refactoring!  Embrace improving source code!

Best Regards,

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list