Tue May 4 00:38:51 CEST 2004
Now that the argument seems to have died down, although it has only gone a
month, I can come along with my opinion. I think we should add user-defined
operators of the type:
Arg1 `op` Arg2 --> op(Arg1, Arg2)
`op` Arg --> op(Arg)
This is what have understood the basic suggestion to be, if I am wrong then
tell me gently. It is really just syntactic sugar so I don't really see what
the problem is. At the moment I don't realy see the need for it, but who
knows after a year. I think the only interesting question is when the
transformation should be made, immediately so you don't see the original
operator version or later. But this is just details.
!! I don't like because it is too much a special case of something general.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hakan Mattsson" <hakan@REDACTED>
To: "Richard A. O'Keefe" <ok@REDACTED>
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: user-defined operators
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
> > operation. It's a function d--nit!
> > Then what the h**l is the point of opposing them?
> > Well, gee, if I wasn't already taking that for granted, there would be
> Please, drop this infected thread.
More information about the erlang-questions