Re: [Erlang Forums] [Erlang/OTP Proposals/Proposals: RFC] Re-visiting EEP-0055

I'm copying the Erlang Questions ML with this post since there was
significant and heated discussion regarding this EEP and not all ML
subscribers have joined the forum.

On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 10:20 PM Bryan Paxton via Erlang Forums
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> starbelly EEF Board
> April 21
>
> EEP-0055 (https://github.com/erlang/eep/blob/master/eeps/eep-0055.md) was=
 submitted on
> 21-Dec-2020.
>
> An accompanying implementation (https://github.com/erlang/otp/pull/2951) =
was submitted in which a lot of conversation ensued.
>
> It was decided that the EEP would not be set for inclusion in OTP-24, per=
 the time table at that juncture and that it would be revisited prior to OT=
P-25. OTP-25 is now at a point where this is not possible.
>
> That said, I wanted to start a topic here about the EEP and gun for inclu=
sion in OTP-26.
>
> I would point to @kennethL=E2=80=99s last comment (https://github.com/erl=
ang/otp/pull/2951#issuecomment-770878570) on the PR as a starting point for=
 discussion.
>
> I suppose my overarching question here is : Is this still on the table? A=
nd if so, what are the road blocks? Kenneth pointed out some possible roadb=
lacks that needed investigation, but it=E2=80=99s not clear to me what happ=
ened after that.
>
> Of course, since I=E2=80=99m raising this topic, I=E2=80=99m obviously in=
 favor of the operator I=E2=80=99d also be happy to work to drive it forwar=
d.
>
> ________________________________
>
> Visit Topic or reply to this email to respond.
>
> You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode.
>
> To unsubscribe from these emails, click here.
>
>