New EEP draft: Pinning operator ^ in patterns
Tue Jan 19 16:19:12 CET 2021
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 12:25:18PM -0000, Wojtek Surowka wrote:
> >> I agree 100%. The most problematic part for me is that the proposed
> >> change is not backward compatible. I saw arguments that it will impact
> >> only small
> > And here come another one...
> > Read the proposal. Read about possible migrations,
> > optionallity, migration paths, and related, before posting.
> I have read the proposal. Yes I understand that it is supposed to be not in
> one go, initially optional, migration paths are proposed etc. In the similar
> straightforward way in which you accused me of discussing something I did
> not read about can you answer a question please? Does the proposal introduce
I am sorry, I was in a bad mood and interpreted your "that the proposed
change is not backward compatible" as you had not read the EEP since it
states up front under "Backwards Compatibility" that "This change is
therefore fully backwards compatible".
> backward incompatibility? Yes or no?
It should be obvious to anyone that has read this thread that that question
can not be answered with a simple yes or no.
> Wojtek Surowka
/ Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
More information about the erlang-questions