PEEP: Annotate difference between boundies and unboundies in patterns? (was: EEP draft: Pin[...])

[Sam Overdorf]

I still vote NO, do not do this.
Sam

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:55 PM Michael P. <empro2@REDACTED> wrote:
>
>
>                     Episode IV
>
>                     A NEW HOPE
>
>     The dark Sith lord xyz seeks to prevent a modification
>     of his life support machine by burning down the galaxy,
>     despite of the utility of such an approach having long
>     since been disproved by the Order of the Netiquette.
>
>     Some call the modification a useful upgrade,
>     others call it a life-threatening manipulation of
>     complex machinery.
>
>     With the last master of the Order lost to pondering
>     what "bring balance" in a completely unbalanced situation
>     could possibly mean, the Rebel Alliance gathers at a
>     secret base in Tikal to find out how it should be called,
>     and to boldly post where no mail has gone before #!$&%@!
>     $%&@%@#^ EEP EEP EEP  EEEEP EEEEP EEEEP  EEP EEP EEP ...
>
> --------
>
>
> Syntactically annotate difference between boundies and unboundies in patterns?
>
> Within a pattern only few things are allowed: literals, constant expressions, bound variables and unbound variables. Boundies and unboundies look the same.
>
> Annotating bound variables with an available character might
>     a) help understand code and
>     b) ease refactoring.
>
> Note: One might as well propose annotating unboundies in patterns, like some `var` declaration when intending to introduce a new symbol. This is too close to the above proposal to maintain separately, too much will be repeated. On the other hand it is too obvious to simply ignore, an opportunity might be overlooked. Without additional information it cannot be decided, which is merely an alternative to the other, so at first it might be best to look at every argument from both positions.
>
>
> As this is not quite virgin ... and FWEIW ...
>
> There are about three kinds of position:
>
>     1) Some say it would help them, go ahead! --
>        apparently oblivious to consequences.
>
>     2) Some keep quiet and add it to their version of
>        _Erlang - The bad parts_ -- apparently without fear
>        of it growing into _Erlang - The good parts_.
>
>     3) Some want to see it burn, but apparently fail
>        to get their reasoning through to the others.
>
>
>     _Construction time again_
>
>
> ~M (getting lazy ;-)
>
> --
>
> Language is a contagious disease --
> and people keep coughing in my face all day.
>
> Sprache ist eine ansteckende Krankheit --
> und die Leute husten mir den ganzen Tag in's Gesicht.
>
>
>
>