[Erlang Forums] [Erlang/OTP Proposals/Proposals: RFC] Re-visiting EEP-0055
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
> > 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
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!
More information about the erlang-questions