Actually, using something like a *Comparable* protocol (as Jose mentioned)
would do this using already-existing language features.
On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 8:46:08 AM UTC-4 Cliff wrote:
> Would it be possible to allow different modules to define multiple clauses
> of the same function as long as they don't overlap? i.e. DateTime could
> define
>
>
> *defmodule DateTime do*
>
>
>
> * def %DateTime{ ... } >= %DateTime{ ... } do ... endend*
>
> So that if you *import DateTime, only: [:>=]*, a call to >= using
> DateTime structs would use DateTime.>=, and all other calls would match the
> clause for Kernel.>=?
> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 6:50:19 PM UTC-4 Billy Lanchantin wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I think a macro approach that takes a single argument and allows
>> chained comparisons covers a lot of the cases being discussed here.
>>
>> Consider something like:
>>
>> # imports a compare?/1 macro
>> use CompareChain, for: DateTime
>>
>> def between?(left, middle, right) do
>> compare?(left <= middle < right)
>> end
>>
>> The code reads well since you don't have the module name getting in the
>> way. And it covers the annoying inclusive/exclusive issue quite nicely I
>> think.
>>
>> It's also convenient because I often find myself combining the results of
>> comparisons (Ben provided some good examples). Being able to chain the
>> operators within the macro helps avoids much of that verbose code. For
>> instance, even with DateTime.before?/3 and DateTime.after?/3, you'd have
>> to render my between?/3 as something like:
>>
>> def between?(left, middle, right) do
>> DateTime.before?(left, middle, inclusive: true) and
>> DateTime.after?(right, middle)
>> end
>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 6:18:09 PM UTC-4 [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> I would *personally* appreciate an inclusive option from the start, as
>>> sometimes the `b` value is pulled from a database and to make the `before?`
>>> work the way `<=` would, I’d have to *add* a millisecond (or day or…) and
>>> for `after?` I’d have to *subtract*.
>>>
>>> -a
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 5:26 PM José Valim <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Making DateTime.compare?(left, :<=, right) resemble left <= right can
>>>> be a win but i think it can also cause confusion in that "why not use left
>>>> <= right in the first place"? And once we import, it makes me wonder why
>>>> it
>>>> isn't a protocol so we can compare anything?
>>>>
>>>> I am not saying we shouldn't tackle those problems... but those are
>>>> likely to take longer discussions.
>>>>
>>>> At the same time, I don't feel we have to pick one option or the
>>>> other. So I would start with DateTime.before?/2 and DateTime.after?/2 for
>>>> now, which is definitely an improvement over the current code and may as
>>>> well elegantly solve the problem in the long term. If not, it is no
>>>> problem
>>>> to restart the discussion.
>>>>
>>>> So a PR for before?/2 and after?/2 (no inclusive for now) on all 4
>>>> modules is welcome. :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 10:14 PM Ben Wilson <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Making < and <= work in general for DateTime has been discussed and
>>>>> isn't feasible. The macro answer I kinda love.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 3:42:16 PM UTC-4 [email protected]
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it possible to modify language in a way to make >,<, = work for
>>>>>> dates?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The datetime's struct has known values
>>>>>> <https://github.com/elixir-lang/elixir/blob/v1.14.1/lib/elixir/lib/calendar/datetime.ex#L110-L123>
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> can be pattern matched against and struct comparison, in general, is not
>>>>>> used that match, so it shouldn't mess up with already written code
>>>>>> (maybe
>>>>>> we even fix couple bugs as using >,<,= to compare dates are relatively
>>>>>> common first bug for new elixir developers).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we can ducktype struct with such attributes and use a regular
>>>>>> DateTime.compate/2 to compare it in Kernel.>/2 function and friends.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 31 Oct 2022, at 19:54, Cliff <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did some more playing around and created this macro:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *defmodule Foo do defmacro compare_with(comparison, module) do
>>>>>> {op, _env, [a, b]} = comparison cmp_result = quote do
>>>>>> unquote(module).compare(unquote(a), unquote(b)) end case op do
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :> -> {:==, [], [cmp_result, :gt]} :< -> {:==, [],
>>>>>> [cmp_result, :lt]} :>= -> {:!=, [], [cmp_result, :lt]}
>>>>>> :<=
>>>>>> -> {:!=, [], [cmp_result, :gt]} end endend*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think it is actually a good solution to this issue, but just
>>>>>> wanted to share the idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *(a >= b) |> compare_with(DateTime)*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 2:46:09 PM UTC-4 [email protected]
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > DateTime.compare(a, :<, b) would get my vote of the alternative
>>>>>>> proposals but I think it doesn't move much the needle in comparison to
>>>>>>> DateTime.compare.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To me this is a pretty big difference difference, because with an
>>>>>>> `import` it does 2 things:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) Eliminates the existence of an irrelevant, boilerplate operator ==
>>>>>>> 2) positions the 2 values you care about correctly with respect to
>>>>>>> the relevant operator
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you have
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DateTime.compare(a, b) == :lt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it's like RPN, you have to hold a and b in your head, remember their
>>>>>>> order, then skip past the `==` since it doesn't matter, and finally you
>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>> to see your comparison. When discussing this in complex contexts the
>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>> to try to distinguish about whether you're talking about what the
>>>>>>> _function
>>>>>>> call is equal to_ from whether the values themselves are equal to is
>>>>>>> actually a pretty big deal. There are basically 4 characters with
>>>>>>> semantic
>>>>>>> value, and there rest are boilerplate. When you have a bunch of these
>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>> next to each other (like when building up complex range helpers)
>>>>>>> https://gist.github.com/benwilson512/456735775028c2da5bd38572d25b7813
>>>>>>> it's just a ton of data to filter out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you could `import DateTime, compare?: 3` this could be
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> compare?(a, :<, b)
>>>>>>> compare?(a, :<=, b)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 2:02:03 PM UTC-4 Cliff wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> > in Elixir the subject is always the first argument
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ah, that clears it up for me, I hadn't yet realized that symmetry
>>>>>>>> in the APIs. I like the before?/after? functions now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 1:16:52 PM UTC-4 José Valim wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not worried about the argument order because in Elixir the
>>>>>>>>> subject is always the first argument. So it is always "is date1
>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>> date2?". I like the :inclusive option if the need ever arises.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DateTime.compare(a, :<, b) would get my vote of the alternative
>>>>>>>>> proposals but I think it doesn't move much the needle in comparison
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> DateTime.compare.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 5:44 PM Cliff <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would prefer the atoms *:before*, and *:after* rather than
>>>>>>>>>> :gt/:greater_than/etc. Since we're already solving the problem of
>>>>>>>>>> operator/argument ordering, why not remove the final mental barrier
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> reasoning about whether a time being "greater than" another time
>>>>>>>>>> means that
>>>>>>>>>> it is before or after? *foo(a, :gt, b)* still requires a second
>>>>>>>>>> thought ("Is a bigger time earlier or later?"), whereas if I read
>>>>>>>>>> code that
>>>>>>>>>> said *foo(a, :before, b)* I would feel confident in my
>>>>>>>>>> understanding after only the first read.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 12:35:05 PM UTC-4 [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I also prefer something like *DateTime.compare(a, operator, b)*.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Operators don't need to be *cryptic* like *:eq*, *:gt*, *:lte*,
>>>>>>>>>>> etc., we can use the same comparison operators we already are used
>>>>>>>>>>> to:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *DateTime.compare(a, :<, b)*
>>>>>>>>>>> *DateTime.compare(a, :==, b)*
>>>>>>>>>>> *DateTime.compare(a, :>=, b)*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's clear and much less verbose than the Ecto's (which was a
>>>>>>>>>>> great suggestion, by the way).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 5:23:54 PM UTC+1 [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hey guys, as an idea why don't we reuse atoms from Ecto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - :less_than
>>>>>>>>>>>> - :greater_than
>>>>>>>>>>>> - :less_than_or_equal_to
>>>>>>>>>>>> - :greater_than_or_equal_to
>>>>>>>>>>>> - :equal_to
>>>>>>>>>>>> - :not_equal_to
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I feel like they are fairly common nowadays and even though
>>>>>>>>>>>> it's more to type make it easier to understand when you want an
>>>>>>>>>>>> inclusive
>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We can later make it part of all modules that have `compare/2`
>>>>>>>>>>>> (Date, DateTime, Time, Version, etc).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 10:10:09 AM UTC-6 Cliff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I prefer the form *DateTime.is <http://DateTime.is>(a,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> operator, b)*, but I agree with others that it would need a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more sensible name than "is".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the form *DateTime.before?(a, b)*, I could still
>>>>>>>>>>>>> see myself getting confused by argument order. *before?(a, b)*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> might be read as "before A happened, B happened", rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the intended "A happened before B". the *is(a, :before,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> b)* form, however, is read exactly how it would be spoken.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding comparison inclusivity, another possibility is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> keyword option: *DateTime.before?(a, b, inclusive: true)*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 3:45:15 AM UTC-4
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> DateTime.before?(a, b) is much nicer than DateTime.compare(a,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) == :lt. It doesn't completely remove the argument order
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reckon it would resolve it for me. I run DateTime.compare(a, b)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in iex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every time I use the function because I'm terribly forgetful and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paranoid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would prefer DateTime.eq?/lt?/le?/gt?/ge? instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before?/after?/on_or_before?/on_or_after? which is shorter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compare/2 and might allow the le/ge equivalents to sneak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through. I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would be a shame to leave out le and ge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DateTime.is?/compare?(a, :lt, b) is a whole lot less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ambiguous to me. It reads how you would write it in maths or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spoken
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 31 October 2022 at 5:08:35 pm UTC+10
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wonder how much of the issue is the Api and how much of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue is just the docs? I.e its not a given that all arguments
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> position always make sense, but we typically rely on things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like elixir_ls
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to help us when the answer isn't obvious.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could we perhaps just improve the docs in some way? i.e
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> update the specs to say `datetime :: Calendar.datetime(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compares_to ::
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calendar.datetime()`, and have the args say `compare(datetime,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compares_to)` and have part of the first line of text say
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something a bit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more informative?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:02 AM, Jon Rowe <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure the name is right, but I like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DateTime.is?(a <http://datetime.is/?(a>, operator, b),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when operator :lt | :le | :eq | :ge | :gt, which would capture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the :le and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :ge options.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a usage api, we could actually have `compare?/3`
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially as the name doesn't overlap with `compare/2` which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hopefully alleviate anyones concerns about the return type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2022, at 6:23 AM, José Valim wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My thought process is that a simple to use API should be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> focus, because we already have a complete API in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date.compare/2 <http://date.compare/2> and friends.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 02:16 Simon McConnell <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would we want on_or_after? and on_or_before? as well then?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or something like DateTime.is?(a <http://datetime.is/?(a>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operator, b), when operator :lt | :le | :eq | :ge | :gt, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capture the :le and :ge options.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 31 October 2022 at 7:26:42 am UTC+10 José Valim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A PR that adds before?/after? to Time, Date, NaiveDateTime,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and DateTime is welcome!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 6:46 PM Cliff <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did a bit of research. Many other languages use some form
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of operator overloading to do datetime comparison. The ones
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something different:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Java has LocalDateTime.compareTo(other)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/11/docs/api/java.base/java/time/LocalDateTime.html#compareTo(java.time.chrono.ChronoLocalDateTime)>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning an integer representing gt/lt/eq. There is also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LocalDateTime.isBefore(other)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/11/docs/api/java.base/java/time/LocalDateTime.html#isBefore(java.time.chrono.ChronoLocalDateTime)>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LocalDateTime.isAfter(other), and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LocalDateTime.isEqual(other). The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LocalDateTime.is <http://localdatetime.is/>{Before,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After} methods are non-inclusive (<, >) comparisons. They
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are instance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methods, so usage is like `myTime1.isBefore(myTime2)`
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - OCaml's "calendar" library provides a Date.compare
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://ocaml.org/p/calendar/3.0.0/doc/CalendarLib/Date/index.html#val-compare>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function that returns an integer representing gt/lt/eq
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for use in OCaml's List.sort function, which sorts a list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided comparison function). It also provides Date.>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://ocaml.org/p/calendar/3.0.0/doc/CalendarLib/Date/index.html#val-(%3E)>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Date.>=
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://ocaml.org/p/calendar/3.0.0/doc/CalendarLib/Date/index.html#val-(%3E=)>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. Worth noting is that OCaml allows you to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression-level module
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imports, like *Date.(my_t1 > my_t2)* to use Date's *>*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the parenthesized expression without needing to *open
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date* in the entire scope ("open" is OCaml's "import")
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - this could potentially be possible in Elixir using a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> macro?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Golang: t1.After(t2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://pkg.go.dev/time#Time.After>, t1.Before(t2),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> t1.Equal(t2). Non-inclusive (> and <).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Clojure clj-time library: (after? t1 t2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://clj-time.github.io/clj-time/doc/clj-time.core.html#var-after.3F>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> , (before? t1 t2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://clj-time.github.io/clj-time/doc/clj-time.core.html#var-before.3F>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and (equal? t1 t2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://clj-time.github.io/clj-time/doc/clj-time.core.html#var-equal.3F>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO the argument order is still confusing in these.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 3:15:14 AM UTC-4 José Valim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am definitely in favor of clearer APIs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, it would probably be best to explore how different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> libraries in different languages tackle this. Can you please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explore this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In particular, I am curious to know if before/after mean "<"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and ">"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respectively or if they mean "<=" and "=>" (I assume the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> former). And also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if some libraries feel compelled to expose functions such as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "after_or_equal" or if users would have to write
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date.equal?(date1, date2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or Date.earlier?(date1, date2), which would end-up doing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> double of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/fcd07389-c6a0-497d-9c09-7f1eacf620c6n%40googlegroups.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/fcd07389-c6a0-497d-9c09-7f1eacf620c6n%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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/e6c55604-c3ea-464c-908c-5a6092f4d8edn%40googlegroups.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/e6c55604-c3ea-464c-908c-5a6092f4d8edn%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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/CAGnRm4%2ByT9jA7uqGX0Cyapgfx0AjW%2BU_d4Ai-NQ6vD9UsEb2uQ%40mail.gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/CAGnRm4%2ByT9jA7uqGX0Cyapgfx0AjW%2BU_d4Ai-NQ6vD9UsEb2uQ%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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/2e821e87-6ee0-4702-b69f-e2616b61b1dd%40app.fastmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/2e821e87-6ee0-4702-b69f-e2616b61b1dd%40app.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 [email protected].
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/7435b979-d0eb-4726-aa65-a94ada53d320n%40googlegroups.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/7435b979-d0eb-4726-aa65-a94ada53d320n%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 [email protected].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/2ca24f84-0a77-4dcc-8917-83ef18bba16an%40googlegroups.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/2ca24f84-0a77-4dcc-8917-83ef18bba16an%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 [email protected].
>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/89619070-2b42-409a-bdeb-1259375f7f14n%40googlegroups.com
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/89619070-2b42-409a-bdeb-1259375f7f14n%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 [email protected].
>>>>
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/CAGnRm4%2BPces0tbWQeZr-iuC%2BZWEyugRJ_9Op8d6oKZ6MmsQAkQ%40mail.gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/CAGnRm4%2BPces0tbWQeZr-iuC%2BZWEyugRJ_9Op8d6oKZ6MmsQAkQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Austin Ziegler • [email protected] • [email protected]
>>> http://www.halostatue.ca/ • http://twitter.com/halostatue
>>>
>>
--
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/ad0d48cc-2f6f-43a8-aac9-532904a0a8f0n%40googlegroups.com.
