Re: New EEP draft: Pinning operator ^ in patterns

Or just don't and leave "well enough" alone.

"No" is an acceptable answer.

-Craig

On 2021/01/20 12:10, Bach Le wrote:
> I rarely post but this change seems strange.
> 
> The rule for Erlang has always been single assignment so I don't think 
> pinning is necessary.
> What if we reverse the operator and call it the "rebind" operator?
> Similar to how Elixir has to explicitly pin, Erlang has to explicitly 
> rebind.
> Borrow the "spirit" and not the exact thing.
> Let's call it "&" to avoid confusion.
> 
> Say in a case expression and you want to introduce a new variable, 
> ignoring whatever that has appeared before, use:
> 
> case thing() of
>      {ok, &T} -> T
> end
> 
> No new error or warning introduced