, it makes sense, but does it for something like Date?
Changing the interpolation syntax saves a small class of errors in specific
circumstances but creates multiple ways to interpolate that lead to
confusion, IMO.
Cheers,
Amos King, CEO
<https://twitter.com/binarynoggin>
&1])
> end
>
> Amos King, CEO
<https://twitter.com/binarynoggin>
<https://www.facebook.com/BinaryNoggin/>
<https://www.instagram.com/binarynoggin/>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/binary-noggin>
573-263-2278 a...@binarynoggin.com
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at
Yes, the `1..9//2` communicates intention a little better than `a..b..c`
IMO.
Amos King, CEO
<https://twitter.com/binarynoggin>
<https://www.facebook.com/BinaryNoggin/>
<https://www.instagram.com/binarynoggin/>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/binary-
` but that comes
with other implementation issues. I like the proposals using a different
operator for the step. `a..b\\c`?
Amos King, CEO
<https://twitter.com/binarynoggin>
<https://www.facebook.com/BinaryNoggin/>
<https://www.instagram.com/binarynoggin/>
<https://www.linkedin.com/compan
What about something closer to Haskell’s ranges? [first, second..last] is their
syntax and the step in inferred by the difference between first and second.
1..2..n would step by one. 1..3..n is step by two. 1..2..0 would be empty, etc.
Negative steps. 1..0..-10. 1..0..10 would return an empty
to reduce the ambiguity.
Amos King
CEO
Binary Noggin
> On Mar 13, 2021, at 06:26, Igor Silva wrote:
>
> Current behavior
>
> case ?a do
> x when x in ?a..?z -> # code
> x when x in ?A..?Z -> # code
> _ -> # code
> end
>
> Desired behavior
>
I’m voting for adding the concept. Bruce sold me with his arguments.
Amos King
CEO
Binary Noggin
> On Feb 5, 2020, at 15:16, Jesse Claven wrote:
>
>
> Thanks everyone for the good discussion! Especially Bruce who was better able
> to explain what I was trying to explain. I
ested many
>>> times previously, was that at some point everyone agreed that it would
>>> improve Elixir's documentation, because it is easier to search for than
>>> `&(&1)`.
>>>
>>> The `const` pattern is much less wide-spread. In e.g. Haskell it s
n't know
how useful that would be in the long run. I know it is common in function
programming, but I don't see it being extremely helpful in Elixir.
I'm ready to be convinced.
Cheers,
Amos King
CEO
Binary Noggin
http://binarynoggin.com #business
https://elixiroutlaws.com #elixir podcast
h
This is a basic of functional programming and has my vote.
Amos King
CEO
Binary Noggin
> On Jul 2, 2019, at 10:26, Chris Keathley wrote:
>
> I'm also in favor of including an `id` function.
>
>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:52 AM Bruce Tate wrote:
>> Strong +1 from me.
take advantage of it.
Amos King
CEO
Binary Noggin
http://binarynoggin.com #business
https://elixiroutlaws.com #elixir podcast
http://thisagilelife.com #podcast
===
I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at http://vsre.info
of applications. I’d rather save the
time there and not have to chain command line calls. Chaining command line
calls also has the added issue of one command has a failure and the rest don’t
run.
Amos King
Binary Noggin
> On Jan 9, 2019, at 04:46, Sven Gehring wrote:
>
> I'd personally prefer t
Thank you for the feedback. I will look into doing just that.
Amos
Amos King
Owner
Binary Noggin
http://binarynoggin.com #business
http://thisagilelife.com #podcast
===
I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at http://vsre.info
the module, but since the code is already in the core I don't think another
hex package is the right solution. I'm willing to do this, but I want to
see what others think before I put the work into it. Would anyone else find
this useful?
Amos King
Owner
Binary Noggin
http://binarynoggin.com #business
core must be
maintained in the core. In thinking through this like the explicitness of
the name, but it doesn't buy much more than utilizing `Enum.take\2`.
Amos King
Owner
Binary Noggin
http://binarynoggin.com #business
http://thisagilelife.com #podcast
===
You want to add a default of 1 to Enum.take/2? I personally don't mind that but
I think it takes away from the explicit nature of the module. I prefer
explicitness if we are only saving a few keystrokes.
Amos King
Binary Noggin
> On Apr 22, 2017, at 04:12, Sam Davies <sampdav...@gma
Before jumping on this should we be asking why the decision was made to not
sort if there are more than 32 keys? Maybe there is a performance concern,
and if we want sorted keys we should be sending a different message?
Amos King
Owner
Binary Noggin
http://binarynoggin.com #business
http
not a fan of the true. I understand that it appears directly above the
header in question, but I like the explicit version. Would this only go
over one clause?, or would it have to be over top of each clause?
Cheers,
Amos
Amos King
Owner
Binary Noggin
http://binarynoggin.com #business
http://thisagi
What is the use case?
Amos King
Binary Noggin
> On Dec 22, 2016, at 20:11, Chris Keele <d...@chriskeele.com> wrote:
>
> Currently only single-letter aliases are allowed. Is this intentional or
> would the capacity to alias, for instance, option "foo"
Is this something that could be solved with an external tool added to your
build chain?
Amos King
Binary Noggin
> On Dec 5, 2016, at 09:29, Allen Madsen <allen.c.mad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I would also argue for case 3.
>
>> However, it does not solve the contextual
Actually could this be solved externally to the language with a static code
analysis tool?
Amos King
Binary Noggin
> On Dec 3, 2016, at 08:34, Allen Madsen <allen.c.mad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It looks like this was already discussed here:
> https://github.com/elixir-lang/
.
I'm In favor of the one caveat of the anonymous functions needing to have the
parentheses and a dot in favor of being able to use bare words.
Amos King
Binary Noggin
> On Dec 3, 2016, at 08:34, Allen Madsen <allen.c.mad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It looks like this was already
In my experience the minimize scope of data binding keeps it pretty
straightforward.
Amos King
Binary Noggin
> On Dec 3, 2016, at 07:50, Michał Muskała <mic...@muskala.eu> wrote:
>
> The ambiguity, that bit me already several times is in the code that looks
> like this:
&
I prefer being able to use the bare words. It makes refactoring simpler to move
between a variable and a method which I do regularly. The warning seems
strange since there isn't an ambiguity that is being decided. I'm on board with
Dave here.
Amos King
Binary Noggin
> On Dec 3, 2016, at
I think I like the App.defmodule more than the other solutions. It is more
focused on the area of concern and doesn't need to be a new part of Elixir.
Amos King
Owner
Binary Noggin
http://binarynoggin.com #business
http://thisagilelife.com #podcast
Here here.
Amos King
Binary Noggin
> On Nov 30, 2016, at 16:47, Michael Terry <mich...@michaelterry.org> wrote:
>
>
> All the time. Naming things in programming is hard and I never get it right
> at first. Knowing that it may be a relative pain to rename a proje
26 matches
Mail list logo
