<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Den tors 28 jan. 2021 kl 11:02 skrev Nicolas Martyanoff <<a href="mailto:khaelin@gmail.com">khaelin@gmail.com</a>>:</div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
I am not representing anyone and never pretended so. But I'm not the only one<br>
noticing how something which was supposed to be an innocent proposition turned<br>
out to be the beginning of a roadmap from another company you worked for as a<br>
consultant.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>There isn't a roadmap. We had one for the direction of the project, and it explored some possible ways to evolve the language. On that path, we found some things that we think could be good for Erlang regardless of what direction you want to go. That's all we're trying to offer here. If we'd found a road to a specific destination where we wanted to be, then trust me that we would have been forthcoming about that.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
If you had started transparently about how you and people at WhatsApp were<br>
hoping to drive changes to the Erlang language, starting with a new<br>
operator/annotation, you would have received very different responses.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Would I have? Any suggested change needs to stand on its own merits, because there can be no guarantee that anyone will continue to build on it. An EEP can explain which further developments are made possible by a certain change, but that does not mean that any of them will happen, only that there would be a new opening for experimentation.</div><div><br></div><div> /Richard</div><div><br></div></div></div>