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

Oliver Korpilla Oliver.Korpilla@REDACTED
Tue Apr 26 08:01:04 CEST 2022

Congratulations, all of you.

You manage quite well what hasn't happened before: Making this list irrelevant. The forums didn't quite do that. But your spammy posts that flood everybody's mailboxes do. 

I bet quite a few reasonable people would have dropped from the list by now. 

I honestly don't care about whether you think if a simple optional operator ruins your true faith or will save us all. 

Just stop the spam battle and by Jove stop reposting messages that actually managed to miss the list to keep fanning this flame war.

On 26 April 2022 04:24:49 CEST, zxq9 <zxq9@REDACTED> wrote:
>I'm assuming you meant your response to be to the list but maybe missed
>that in a rush to respond (I know, things can sure get heated when
>someone is wrong on the internet!).
>On 2022/04/26 3:29, Austin Ziegler wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:23 PM zxq9 <zxq9@REDACTED <mailto:zxq9@REDACTED>> wrote:
>>     On 2022/04/26 0:45, 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.
>>     Sorry, but no.
>> Sorry, but you don’t actually get to tell me what I think is clearer. Full stop.
>I get to point out when your argument leans on an un-idiomatic construct
>and demonstrate how the idiomatic way makes this a non-issue at its
>Did you even read what I wrote? I gave an idiomatic example.
>> As I said, I don’t really care about this EEP. I do care that people have been arguing this emotionally (while pretending not to do so) and have taken sideswipes against other languages that have made different choices.
>Emotional? The only emotion I'm feeling right now is mirth, buddy.
>Me:  [points out how your example makes no sense]
>Me:  OK, bro. [chuckles in Erlangistani]
>> The Erlang core development team has expressed some interest in this EEP. Wouldn’t it be more productive to take it up with them on the forum, and provide them actually *useful* arguments?
>The CoC bans those of us who disagree with the DIE and ESG religion
>from participating in the forums. So, no.
>I mentioned all this before.
>You never read what I wrote.
>That's been a theme in this super weird thread.
>> It’d be more fun than the soliloquizing that I’ve seen so far.
>Sorry, you're going to have to use fewer $2 words; we conservative
>minded folks are too stupid to understand what you're saying if it
>doesn't involve cheeseburgers, pro-wrestling or Orange Man metaphors.

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list