[eeps] Proposal for /\ and \/ operators

[Ulf Wiger]

(...after a moment's confusion as to why I was
explicitly Cc:d in this case. :)

Richard O'Keefe wrote:
> 
> Is there _anything_ about Erlang that doesn't "have a good chance
> of confusing people"?  The use of '->' for something that is not
> implication?  The use of '=' for something that is neither
> mathematics' symmetric equality nor Fortran's assignment?  The
> requirement to write '=<' rather than '<='?  The use of '==' and
> '=:=' as well as '=', where the first two are the same spelling
> as Prolog operators, but with the opposite meanings?  The
> existence of three different ways to say "and" (the shortest of
> which is almost always the wrong one)?  The fact that f == g is
> legal when f and g are function names, but doesn't call f or g?
> The difference between f(X) and ?MODULE:f(X)?  The fact that
> function clauses end with a dot except when they don't?
> 
> If we rejected every part of Erlang that might confuse someone,
> just about all that would remain would be 1+1.  No, wait, the
> full stop at the end is confusing....

Entertaining, but in the end a rather weak argument in favour
of introducing more confusion... ;-)

> Could we reach a consensus on
> 
>     erlang:max/2
>     erlang:min/2
> 
> Callable without the prefix if and only if there is
 > no locally defined function with the same name?

That works for me.

BR,
Ulf W

-- 
Ulf Wiger
CTO, Erlang Training & Consulting Ltd
http://www.erlang-consulting.com