Re: New EEP draft: Pinning operator ^ in patterns

I think the proposal does not have 2, but 3 objectives, the way I look at
it:-

1. Warning (An alarm to the "mythical Developer")
2. Semantic Alteration (Making it consistent with the rest of places where
it is already there, but without an annotation. But already inconsistent
with the proclaimed notion of treatment of Names in Erlang, and one will
realize this if learning Erlang from first principles, and an inductive
assessment will surface this anyway)
3. Syntactic Annotation (Light the "Shadow")

नमस्ते।
नलिन रंजन

On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 3:50 PM Michael P. <[email protected]> wrote:

> :-) % Deprecated, going to be removed soon, superfluous
>     % ... and a bit "childish" ... :-)
>
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 17:40:49 +0100
> Loïc Hoguin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > But I would not be OK if Erlang allowed this:
> >
> >    Config = case get_config() of
> >        undefined -> default_config();
> >        Config -> [{extra, value}|Config]
> >    end
>
> Too late?
>
>     "Zazou, comment allez-vous?"
>
> ```
> 8> Conf = case [3] of
> 8>     undefined -> [1];
> 8>     Newconf -> [2 | Newconf] end.
> [2,3]
> 9> Conf.
> [2,3]
> ```
>     "Or am I losing my mind?"
>
>
> > should not add more. Better yet if this shadowing becomes completely
> > forbidden. Then there's no confusion to be had about which variable ^
>
> Somewhere in the archive R. Virding told ROK
> that every FL did shadow, but, alas!, not why.
>
> Can shadowing not "simply be ignored"?
> because of what I described in C6 in
>
>   http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2021-January/100399.html
>
> ? I get a warning, think of a better name --
> take the opportunity to reflect on what I am doing! --
> done: no shadowing.
>
> I am growing an impression that people name terms,
> or even types, instead of purposes.
>
>     "Or am I losing my mind?"
>
> ~M
>
> --
>
> Reasonable is that which cannot
> be criticised reasonably anymore.
>
> Vernüftig ist das, was nicht mehr
> vernünftig kritisiert werden kann.
>
>
>
>
>