New EEP draft: Pinning operator ^ in patterns
Wed Jan 20 11:26:56 CET 2021
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 01:50:00AM +0100, empro2@REDACTED wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 13:16:54 +0100
> Raimo Niskanen <raimo+erlang-questions@REDACTED> wrote:
> > In anger
> Spending a lot of the day trying to clear up a horrible misunderstanding with Karl Velicka, and possibly others, I am even beginning to fear you might be one of those.
Erm... Not that much, I think. :-)
> My message
That was mostly too long for me, did not read it all, could not follow all your
cultural and technical references and trains of thought, so it might have
been slightly, as we say in Swedish: "to sprinkle salt in the wounds".
> was intended for the list (mostly, oc). I tried (but failed) to make it a reply to
I did not notice no strangeness in To:, Cc:, etc...
> because I felt the same and thought it a good place for some intermediate summary.
> I left your address in, only because I suspected it help with the threading.
> The personal appendix was meant to be a very late thank you for changing "can not" to "cannot". At the time, I decided against explicitly thanking you, because I was sure there were people not convinced and who might feel hurt by "my triumph". So I bet on you deducting my gladness and thankfulness from my preceding messages.
Oh. I missed that completely! I still fall make the same mistake, it seems I
can not learn ;-) how it is supposed to be. I am sorry I had forgotten who's
contirbution that was.
> The way chosen was meant to express my appreciation by showing that I have not forgotten. I deleted a :-) because it looked too much like a correction, friendly but nevertheless .... I deleted a ;-) because it looked too ironic, might be perceived as sarcastic or .... I refrained from explaining in prose because it was already a long message and I did not want to make too heavy? serious? The grin was meant to be ... a little embarrassed, insecure ... At the time it appeared clear to me. After this day, I fear it might be perceived as not even ambiguous but unambigous -- in a way absolutely not intended.
I think you were overthinking...
I suspect that the cultural impedance mismatch between different backgrounds
on a mailing list like this makes tiny details like that insignificant. The
mistakes we make might be blatant ones we cannot see so there might be
little point in pondering over small nuances that probably will go unnoticed.
> This morning I briefly considered telling you, that there is no need to be angry, that people might be a bit tense due to surprise and the impression of the EEP being only short of the pull, merge, announce, release finish. Then I found the misunderstanding, then I tried to explain -- and understand. And now ...
> Should I have contributed to your anger: please accept my sincere apology.
If so, no problem. :-)
> What was said, is not what was spoken,
> but what was understood; and none of these
> comes necessarily close to what was meant.
I love that! Where does that quote come from?
/ Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
More information about the erlang-questions