Another option would be extending *for* to accept matches and set bindings
in its macro's list of clauses, like *with* (which also mixes *<-* with *=*)
list = [1]
for option <- list, option = {key, value} do
{option, key, value}
end
# proposal would raise runtime MatchError
# today raises compiletime CompileError: undefined function key/0
I actually like this even more than the other proposals I've advocated for.
It'd bring the only other *<-* operator-using-construct (*for*) closer to
the featureset of *with* and raises the intuitive *MatchError* instead of
the *ForClauseError* that would be more consistent with other
implementations.
On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 10:51:19 AM UTC-7 zachary....@gmail.com wrote:
> 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....@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> 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 <ad...@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 <paulscho...@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 <paulscho...@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....@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 <christ...@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>
>>>> 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 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:
>>>>
>>>> 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> 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
>>>> 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.
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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-co...@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
>>>> .
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>>>> elixir-lang-co...@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-co...@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-co...@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-co...@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-co...@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-co...@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-co...@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-co...@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-co...@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/b731337d-0346-4bd5-a91d-fc29b0493106n%40googlegroups.com.
