Ultimately if we don’t prefer the operator, I’d rather just see:
for var <- list do
%{destructured: data} = var
end
Over the `for!` operator. I don’t know why the operator seems so much better
than `for!` to me though.
> On Jun 15, 2021, at 1:45 PM, Stefan Chrobot <ste...@chrobot.io> wrote:
>
> Ideally, <- and = would have the same semantics in "for" and "with", but I'm
> not sure how confusing "for {:ok, post} = posts, do: ..." would be.
>
> Given all that, I find "for!" to be the best approach, except for the name.
> As stated before, a bang version feels like a precedent. I think "fors" ("for
> strict") is better (like def and defp), or maybe a totally different name for
> a loop (while?, loop?, rep?, iter?).
>
> wt., 15 cze 2021 o 19:06 José Valim <jose.va...@dashbit.co
> <mailto:jose.va...@dashbit.co>> napisał(a):
> I am against introducing a new operator because I think that will be just
> unclear. Regardless if we pick "<!-" or "<<-", I don't think the notation
> would be clear to everyone reading the code. Between for!, a strict option,
> and the operator, the operator is, in my opinion, the most unreadable.
>
> Furthermore, the operator doesn't have a use in "with", because "with" can
> use = for strict matches.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 6:59 PM Stefan Chrobot <ste...@chrobot.io
> <mailto:ste...@chrobot.io>> wrote:
> How about an "else" block for the items that don't match?
>
> for {:ok, item} <- items do
> # ...
> else
> # ...
> end
>
> This would be consistent with <- in "with". I'm assuming the intention would
> be to prefer "for!" over "for" for most of the cases so the issue with this
> is a need to figure out a terse syntax for raising a MatchError without
> having to type something like "else _ -> raise MatchError"; plus also include
> what was being attempted in the error message. Is "else raise" an option?
>
> Best,
> Stefan
>
> niedz., 13 cze 2021 o 14:06 Adam Lancaster <a...@a-corp.co.uk
> <mailto:a...@a-corp.co.uk>> napisał(a):
> That makes sense!
>
> I guess you could make a new operator available outside of the `for` too,
> like back in a `with`... Maybe `<-!`
>
> Best
>
> Adam
>
>
>> On 11 Jun 2021, at 19:11, Paul Schoenfelder <paulschoenfel...@fastmail.com
>> <mailto:paulschoenfel...@fastmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> In my opinion, internal consistency is part of the mental model, so
>> inconsistency reflects a flaw in the model. That said, I think that's
>> probably talking past you on this a bit, and I get what your point is:
>> ultimately if it is reasonably intuitive, consistency can be allowed to fall
>> by the wayside a bit. I guess where I disagree is that I'm not sure this
>> will intuitive for someone not already steeped in the language. The point I
>> was getting at by comparing `for` and `with` is that they both make use of
>> the same `<-` operator in a way that is consistent across both forms, but
>> with `for!` that falls apart.
>>
>> Now back to `for!`. Even though it looks just like `for`, the `<-` operator
>> starts to behave like `=`. If you are skimming code and happen to miss the
>> single character difference between the two (`for` vs `for!`), you will wind
>> up with a very different idea about what the same code does. The human brain
>> is terrible at distinguishing small differences like this, it's why you can
>> typo things like `behavior` and `behaviour` and read right over it without
>> noticing, sometimes even when you are _trying_ to notice those things.
>>
>> I think it would be far better for us to use a new operator in place of
>> `<-`, rather than a new special form that looks basically identical to an
>> existing one, but works differently in subtle ways. Not to mention, the
>> operator approach would allow one to mix both `<-` and the new operator
>> together in the same `for`, should it be useful to do so. In any case, I
>> don't really have a strong opinion on what that operator is specifically,
>> but I am much more in favor of that direction, than I am `for!`.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021, at 9:24 AM, Adam Lancaster wrote:
>>> I'm definitely sympathetic to that idea.
>>>
>>> I think part of what internal consistency buys us is predictability and
>>> therefore a quicker path to a good mental model about what the code is
>>> going to do. But the mental model is the more important thing. Which is
>>> just to say if we don't have internal consistency but we can get to a good
>>> mental model, then I think it might be okay.
>>>
>>> I think given other functions that follow the same idea, seeing a `for!`
>>> would certainly communicate "right this is expected to raise under some
>>> condition" - at least to me.
>>>
>>> There's also not an obvious way to have `for` mimic `with` when I think
>>> about it because say you do this:
>>>
>>> ```
>>> for [a, _] = [1, 2], do: ...
>>> ```
>>>
>>> there is no way to distinguish it from a filter - where `=` should not
>>> raise a match error.
>>>
>>> I think you'd have to more clearly de-mark the difference between the
>>> generators and the filters, which feels like a big change.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 11 Jun 2021, at 00:13, Paul Schoenfelder <paulschoenfel...@fastmail.com
>>>> <mailto:paulschoenfel...@fastmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I’m generally in favor of the option to have stricter semantics, but to me
>>>> the introduction of `for!` feels out of sync with other special forms,
>>>> none of which are bang-form. Furthermore, especially in contrast to
>>>> `with`, you end up with this weird dichotomy with the `<-` operator, where
>>>> sometimes it means a filtering match, and other times where it means
>>>> strict match. That kind of syntactical inconsistency in a language feels
>>>> like a bad precedent to set, despite what feels like a reasonable
>>>> compromise. It’s also notable to me that there are easy ways to program
>>>> defensively to force match errors if you want them, within the current
>>>> syntax, but obviously that comes at the cost of more verbosity.
>>>>
>>>> I’m not sure what the right answer is, but this feels to me like rushing
>>>> to solve a specific problem without spending enough time considering how
>>>> it meshes with the rest of the language in terms of cognitive complexity,
>>>> particularly for those new to the language.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, that’s my two cents. I’m a fan of the concept for sure, but would
>>>> almost prefer to see the semantics changed in a major version bump, to
>>>> match `with`, even if that meant manually updating a bunch of my code,
>>>> because at least it keeps the language self consistent. I’ll admit I’m
>>>> probably an outlier on that though.
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2021, at 6:16 PM, Christopher Keele wrote:
>>>>> That's fair enough! Though from my perspective both for! and strict: true
>>>>> would be about equally far from the <- where matches fail. But I can see
>>>>> the keyword format getting lost in the filters and other keywords.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 3:14 PM José Valim <jose.va...@dashbit.co
>>>>> <mailto:jose.va...@dashbit.co>> wrote:
>>>>> Sorry, I meant to someone reading the code. The strict option is
>>>>> modifying the behavior of the operator <-, which may be quite before it
>>>>> in the text.
>>>>>
>>>>> I prefer for! in this case as it is upfront.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 00:09 Christopher Keele <christheke...@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:christheke...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> > My concern with :strict is that it changes the behavior considerably of
>>>>> > the generators but it may show up only quite later on, far from them,
>>>>> > especially if you have multiple filters.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you elaborate? I don't quite think I understand, particularly "[the
>>>>> behaviour] may show up only quite later on"
>>>>>
>>>>> Does "quite later" here refer to code distance (the MatchError's
>>>>> stacktrace would point away from/bury the for location)? Or temporal
>>>>> distance?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 2:58:03 PM UTC-7 José Valim wrote:
>>>>> My concern with :strict is that it changes the behavior considerably of
>>>>> the generators but it may show up only quite later on, far from them,
>>>>> especially if you have multiple filters.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 23:56 Christopher Keele <christ...@ <>gmail.com
>>>>> <http://gmail.com/>> wrote:
>>>>> > for {:ok, num} <- list, strict: true, do: num
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed, this is more or less exactly what I was pitching.
>>>>> On Wednesday, June 9, 2021 at 10:16:25 PM UTC-7 tal...@ <>gmail.com
>>>>> <http://gmail.com/> wrote:
>>>>> I would like to add a solution within the existing language:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ```elixir
>>>>>
>>>>> > list = [{:ok, 1}, {:ok, 2}, {:error, :fail}, {:ok, 4}]
>>>>> > for el <- list, do: ({:ok, num} = el; num)
>>>>> ** (MatchError) no match of right hand side value: {:error, :fail}
>>>>> ```
>>>>> I think this is reasonable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Acctually the built in filtering in `for` caught me off guard, I was
>>>>> expecting for to fail unless all elements matched. So for me the better
>>>>> solution would be to always make matching in `for` strict. But I guess
>>>>> this is too late now for backwards compatibility. Another alternative to
>>>>> `for!` would be:
>>>>>
>>>>> ```elixir
>>>>>
>>>>> > list = [{:ok, 1}, {:ok, 2}, {:error, :fail}, {:ok, 4}]
>>>>> > for {:ok, num} <- list, strict: true, do: num
>>>>> ** (MatchError) no match of right hand side value: {:error, :fail}
>>>>> ```
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't like the use of the exclamation mark in `for!` because it has
>>>>> little meaning relative to the existing use of the exclamation mark in
>>>>> Elixir.
>>>>>
>>>>> onsdag 9. juni 2021 kl. 13:17:04 UTC+2 skrev ad...@ <>a-corp.co.uk
>>>>> <http://a-corp.co.uk/>:
>>>>> I also love the proposal.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a shame we can't re-use the `with` semantics of `=` raising a match
>>>>> error in the for.
>>>>>
>>>>> My two cents is `for!` makes the most sense, and follows the conventions
>>>>> of other functions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best
>>>>>
>>>>> Adam
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8 Jun 2021, at 18:18, Christopher Keele <christ...@ <>gmail.com
>>>>>> <http://gmail.com/>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> This feature would be very useful, I've experience this signature-change
>>>>>> pain point before too (and kind of have been avoiding `for` ever since,
>>>>>> TBH).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm reluctant to increase the surface area of the language itself, what
>>>>>> do you think about adding a `:strict` option to `for` instead of a new
>>>>>> special form/kernel macro/operator?
>>>>>> On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 9:50:45 AM UTC-7 eric.meado...@gmail.com
>>>>>> <http://gmail.com/> wrote:
>>>>>> ## Background
>>>>>>
>>>>>> `for` comprehensions are one of the most powerful features in Elixir. It
>>>>>> supports both enumerable and bitstring generators, filters through
>>>>>> boolean expressions and pattern matching, collectibles with `:into` and
>>>>>> folding with `:reduce`.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of the features are automatic filtering by patterns in generators:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ```elixir
>>>>>> list = [{:ok, 1}, {:ok, 2}, {:error, :fail}, {:ok, 4}]
>>>>>> for {:ok, num} <- list, do: num
>>>>>> #=> [1, 2, 4]
>>>>>> ```
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Generator filtering is very powerful because it allows you to succinctly
>>>>>> filter out data that is not relevant to the comprehension in the same
>>>>>> expression that you are generating elements out of your
>>>>>> enumerable/bitstrings. But the implicit filtering can be dangerous
>>>>>> because changes in the shape of the data will silently be removed which
>>>>>> can cause hard to catch bugs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The following example can show how this can be an issue when testing
>>>>>> `Posts.create/0`. If a change causes the function to start returning
>>>>>> `{:ok, %Post{}}` instead of the expected `%Post{}` the test will pass
>>>>>> even though we have a bug.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ```elixir
>>>>>> test "create posts" do
>>>>>> posts = Posts.create()
>>>>>> for %Post{id: id} <- posts, do: assert is_integer(id)
>>>>>> end
>>>>>> ```
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The example uses a test to highlight the issue but it can just as well
>>>>>> happen in production code, specially when refactoring in other parts of
>>>>>> the code base than the comprehension.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Elixir is a dynamically typed language but dynamic typing errors are
>>>>>> less of an issue compared to many other dynamic languages because we are
>>>>>> usual strict in the data we accept by using pattern matching and guard
>>>>>> functions. `for` is by design not strict on the shape of data it accepts
>>>>>> and therefor loses the nice property of early failure on incorrect data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ## Proposal
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I propose an alternative comprehension macro called `for!` that has the
>>>>>> same functionality as `for` but instead of filtering on patterns in
>>>>>> generators it will raise a `MatchError`.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ```elixir
>>>>>> posts = [{:ok, %Post{}}]
>>>>>> for! %Post{id: id} <- posts, do: assert is_integer(id)
>>>>>> #=> ** (MatchError) no match of right hand side value: {:ok, %Post{}}
>>>>>> ```
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pattern matching when not generating values with `=` remains unchanged.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> `for!` gives the developer an option to be strict on the data it accepts
>>>>>> instead of silently ignoring data that does not match.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ## Other considerations
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can get strict matching with `for` today by first assigning to a
>>>>>> variable. This way you can also mix filtering and strict matching
>>>>>> patterns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ```elixir
>>>>>> posts = [{:ok, %Post{}}]
>>>>>> for post <- posts,
>>>>>> %Post{id: id} = post,
>>>>>> do: assert is_integer(id)
>>>>>> #=> ** (MatchError) no match of right hand side value: {:ok, %Post{}}
>>>>>> ```
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another alternative is to introduce a new operator such as `<<-` (the
>>>>>> actual token can be anything, `<<-` is only used as an example) for
>>>>>> raising pattern matches instead of introducing a completely new macro.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ```elixir
>>>>>> posts = [{:ok, %Post{}}]
>>>>>> for %Post{id: id} <<- posts, do: assert is_integer(id)
>>>>>> #=> ** (MatchError) no match of right hand side value: {:ok, %Post{}}
>>>>>> ```
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A downside of adding new functions or macros is that it doesn't compose
>>>>>> as well compared to adding options (or operators) to existing functions.
>>>>>> If we want to add another variant of comprehensions in the future we
>>>>>> might be in the position that we need 4 macros, and then 8 and so on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another benefit of adding an operator is that you can mix both `<-` and
>>>>>> `<<-` in a single comprehension.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The downside of an operator is that it adds more complexity for the
>>>>>> language user. We would also need an operator that is visually close to
>>>>>> `<-` but still distinctive enough that they are easy to separate since
>>>>>> their behavior are very difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>>> Groups "elixir-lang-core" group.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>>>>> an email to elixir-lang-co...@ <>googlegroups.com
>>>>>> <http://googlegroups.com/>.
>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/42adcfba-12d8-4469-a156-f412b0d290a9n%40googlegroups.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/42adcfba-12d8-4469-a156-f412b0d290a9n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>>>> "elixir-lang-core" group.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>>>>> email to elixir-lang-co...@ <>googlegroups.com <http://googlegroups.com/>.
>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/f4d5c0be-567a-4a7d-9b39-68202226c788n%40googlegroups.com
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/f4d5c0be-567a-4a7d-9b39-68202226c788n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>>>> "elixir-lang-core" group.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>>>>> email to elixir-lang-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>>>>> <mailto:elixir-lang-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/0ce03abc-61bb-4423-b6a8-704d1d62169fn%40googlegroups.com
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/0ce03abc-61bb-4423-b6a8-704d1d62169fn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>>>>> Google Groups "elixir-lang-core" group.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/elixir-lang-core/LEUD2alHPiE/unsubscribe
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/topic/elixir-lang-core/LEUD2alHPiE/unsubscribe>.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>>>>> elixir-lang-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>>>>> <mailto:elixir-lang-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/CAGnRm4K01hBRkjLaRPj5ktViNNjYqdFbKdysvFcDVG%3DgBp78dA%40mail.gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/CAGnRm4K01hBRkjLaRPj5ktViNNjYqdFbKdysvFcDVG%3DgBp78dA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>>>> "elixir-lang-core" group.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>>>>> email to elixir-lang-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>>>>> <mailto:elixir-lang-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/CAD9kT2QPn_prFiS%2BR9eemqA43DMvvOB8NrAweL2PgE_ZR2g6Cg%40mail.gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/CAD9kT2QPn_prFiS%2BR9eemqA43DMvvOB8NrAweL2PgE_ZR2g6Cg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>>> "elixir-lang-core" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>>>> email to elixir-lang-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>>>> <mailto:elixir-lang-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/8a6cf634-cda5-4445-8230-4b7b69ed5ca8%40www.fastmail.com
>>>>
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/8a6cf634-cda5-4445-8230-4b7b69ed5ca8%40www.fastmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "elixir-lang-core" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>>> email to elixir-lang-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>>> <mailto:elixir-lang-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/65609056-4A25-45FA-B91F-84D4DF292129%40a-corp.co.uk
>>>
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/65609056-4A25-45FA-B91F-84D4DF292129%40a-corp.co.uk?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "elixir-lang-core" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to elixir-lang-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>> <mailto:elixir-lang-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/4f04033a-d509-460e-8205-ad23e1251b1e%40www.fastmail.com
>>
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/4f04033a-d509-460e-8205-ad23e1251b1e%40www.fastmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "elixir-lang-core" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to elixir-lang-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:elixir-lang-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/CE301440-828B-41A5-B388-75CD6FF94699%40a-corp.co.uk
>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/CE301440-828B-41A5-B388-75CD6FF94699%40a-corp.co.uk?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "elixir-lang-core" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to elixir-lang-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:elixir-lang-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/CACzMe7b6srxk_vE45h-qY--g61t-Lzqgvix46jX2GxQRE46FGA%40mail.gmail.com
>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/CACzMe7b6srxk_vE45h-qY--g61t-Lzqgvix46jX2GxQRE46FGA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "elixir-lang-core" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to elixir-lang-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:elixir-lang-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/CAGnRm4KFQ_2BNCXmFdJuxJC2XWD-hSpbod5_wt%2Bka%3DSBpfFcpg%40mail.gmail.com
>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/CAGnRm4KFQ_2BNCXmFdJuxJC2XWD-hSpbod5_wt%2Bka%3DSBpfFcpg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "elixir-lang-core" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to elixir-lang-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:elixir-lang-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/CACzMe7YNuuhqq9S%2BJu6W_829XVBbPZar9vj5pAjkcan99NO82w%40mail.gmail.com
>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/CACzMe7YNuuhqq9S%2BJu6W_829XVBbPZar9vj5pAjkcan99NO82w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"elixir-lang-core" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to elixir-lang-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/2D2708AE-68A2-417E-9645-991A060AC151%40gmail.com.
