[Erlang Forums] [Erlang/OTP Proposals/Proposals: RFC] Re-visiting EEP-0055
Fri Apr 29 00:47:04 CEST 2022
On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 12:00:39AM +1200, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
> I can't recall everything I said against this EEP,
> but there are two issues I can think of right now,
> and a better alternative.
> The counter-proposal is quite simple.
> (B) Fix the locality problem. The right way.
> By declaring which variables are *local*,
> not which variables are *not* local.
> Borrowing some syntax from Prolog (as Erlang
> originally got its syntax thence), let D be
> a syntactic form made of tuples, lists, and
> variables, and C be a pattern or expression.
> Then D ^ C means that each of the variables
> in D represents a new variable in C, not
> provided, visible, or in any way accessible
> in C.
> With this approach, local scope is available for
> *every* construct. With the scope marker being
> located at the *beginning* of a construct, instead
> of being buried possibly deeply inside, it should
> be easier to read.
Could you show a small example?
I do not realize what this would look like...
/ Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
More information about the erlang-questions