Again, for the purposes of the code examples above, assume:
{foo, bar} = {1, 2}
Additionally,
- Lines beginning with # == indicate what the compiler expands an
expression to.
- Lines beginning with # => represent the result of evaluating that
expression.
- Lines beginning with *# !> * represent an exception.
On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 9:30:41 PM UTC-5 Christopher Keele wrote:
> I've figured out the tokenizer enough to prototype this as new operator;
> working title the "tagged variable literal" operator (not in love with that
> name). I'm using a dollar sign ($) to represent it.
>
> It has the same issues as before, as I've ungracefully wedged it between
> the capture operator and other precedences, but now is logically separated
> from the capture operator. Weird stuff still happens without wrapping it in
> parens in certain contexts, for example; but I think it's enough to
> continue discussion around this proposal if we want to refocus it around a
> new operator.
>
> I'm happy to refine the branch further and work on a PR, but would need
> much guidance, and so would rather leave it as is for now without more
> feedback on the proposal and related blessings, as I would need more
> core-team support to implement it than I did defguard. Still sounds really
> fun to do.
>
> The source code for this new fork of Elixir is available here
> <https://github.com/elixir-lang/elixir/compare/main...christhekeele:elixir:tagged-variable-literals>
> for
> experimentation. For convenience, here are the examples in this proposal
> reworked to use a dedicated $ operator for compile-time tagged variable
> literals. They all work in iex on my fork, although many obvious usages of
> it do not without more work:
>
> *Bare Tagged Variable Literals*
>
> $:foo
> # == *{:foo, foo}*
> # => {:foo, 1}
> $"foo"
> # == *{"foo", foo}*
> # => {"foo", 1}
>
> If bare usage is supported, this expansion would work as expected in match
> and guard contexts as well, since it expands before variable references are
> resolved:
>
> {:foo, baz} = $:foo
> *# == {:foo, baz} = {:foo, foo}*
> # => {:foo, 1}
> baz
> # => 1
>
> *Tagged Variable Literals in **Lists*
>
> Since tagged variable expressions are allowed in lists, this can be used
> to construct Keyword lists from the local variable scope elegantly:
>
> list = [$:foo, $:bar]
> # == *list = [{:foo, foo}, {:bar, bar}]*
> # => [foo: 1, bar: 2]
>
> This would work with other list operators like *|*:
>
> baz = 3
> list = [$:baz | list]
> # == *list = [**{:baz, baz} **| **list**]*
> # => [baz: 3, foo: 1, bar: 2]
>
> And list destructuring:
>
> {foo, bar, baz} = {nil, nil, nil}
> [$:baz, $:foo, $:bar] = list
> *# == [{:baz, baz}, {:foo, foo}, {:bar, bar}] = list*
> # => [baz: 3, foo: 1, bar: 2]
> {foo, bar, baz}
> # => {1, 2, 3}
>
> *Tagged Variable Literals in **Maps*
>
> With a small change to the parser,
> <https://github.com/elixir-lang/elixir/commit/119bd6da351e8fe2ab94e86a8456ffc521ce865d#diff-7e4167a9de48e2dcae64fae18a5b2ddad1d4aeff8f2dde274eb6f127ef65ac11R615>
> we
> can allow this expression inside map literals. Because this expression
> individually gets expanded into a tagged-tuple before the map associations
> list as a whole are processed, it allow this syntax to work in all existing
> map/struct constructs, like map construction:
>
> map = %{$:foo, $"bar"}
> *# == %{:foo => foo, "bar" => bar}*
> # => %{:foo => 1, "bar" => 2}
>
> Map updates:
>
> foo = 3
> map = %{map | $:foo}
> *# == %{map | :foo => foo}*
> # => %{:foo => 3, "bar" => 2}
>
> And map destructuring:
>
> {foo, bar} = {nil, nil}
> %{$:foo, &"bar"} = map
> *# == %{:foo => foo, "bar" => bar} = map*
> # => %{:foo => 3, "bar" => 2}
> {foo, bar}
> # => {3, 2}
>
> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 8:36:15 PM UTC-5 Paul Schoenfelder wrote:
>
>> I do think there is value in proposing the "tagged variable captures"
>> idea separately, but at the same time, your solution for field punning is
>> part of the value proposition there. That said, as you've already noted, it
>> is very easy for the conversation to get bogged down when more than one
>> thing is being discussed at a time.
>>
>> This is a very salient point. How do you feel about introducing a new
>> operator for this sugar, such as $:foo?
>>
>>
>> The first thing that sticks out to me is that there are a variety of
>> places where atoms starting with `$` occur in practice (particularly around
>> ETS), so I could see things like `$:$$` appearing in code, which is
>> just...no. Of course, an argument could be made that one should just not do
>> that, but it is something to consider. Obviously, you can't get rid of the
>> `:` for the same reason.
>>
>> But the idea of an operator more generally? I guess it would really
>> depend on the specific choice. I don't like it in principle, but I'd want
>> to cast my vote with a specific syntax in question, such as those you've
>> proposed. As I mentioned in my previous reply, I really think the best path
>> for Elixir with regard to field punning is to solve the syntax ambiguities
>> that prevent the "obvious" syntax for it, e.g. `%{foo, bar} = baz`, and
>> only focus on supporting atom keys. That may not be possible without
>> backwards-incompatible changes to the grammar, in which case it's something
>> to throw on the wishlist of things that could go in an eventual Elixir 2.0.
>>
>> I think it's important to cast the feature in a broader context, because
>> I think everyone would agree that field punning is a nice-to-have. But is
>> the tradeoff in complexity for the language really worth it? The more
>> explicit syntax is (perhaps) more annoying to write, but I think the vast
>> majority would agree that it is simple, clear, and easy to reason about.
>> When we're arguing for field punning, we're really arguing for a
>> significant benefit when writing code, but only in the "obvious" syntax I
>> gave an example of above do I think one can argue that there is any benefit
>> in terms of readability, and even then it is a small benefit. It adds
>> cognitive overhead, particularly for new Elixir developers, as one must
>> desugar the syntax in their head. I don't think that cognitive overhead is
>> significant, but it is only one thing amongst many that one must carry
>> around in their head when working with Elixir code - we should aim to
>> reduce that overhead rather than add to it.
>>
>> Anyway, I don't think I'm adding anything new to the arguments that have
>> been made in the past, so I don't want to derail your proposal here, or add
>> to the noise, particularly with regard to the "tagged variable captures"
>> portion, which deserves its own consideration. I will leave it up to the
>> community at large to decide, but just want to say thanks again for putting
>> so much effort into summarizing the current state of the discussion and
>> implementing a prototype of your proposal - it certainly gives it a lot
>> more weight to me.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023, at 8:45 PM, Christopher Keele wrote:
>>
>> > My thoughts on the proposal itself aside, I’d just like to say that I
>> think you’ve set a great example of what proposals on this list should look
>> like. Well done!
>>
>> Much appreciated!
>>
>> > I have an almost visceral reaction to the use of capture syntax for
>> this though.
>>
>> > I think calling the `&…` syntax “capture syntax” is actually
>> misleading, and only has that name because it can be used to construct
>> closures by “capturing” a function name, but it is more accurate to
>> consider it closure syntax, in my opinion.
>>
>> This is a very salient point. How do you feel about introducing a new
>> operator for this sugar, such as $:foo?
>> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 7:41:05 PM UTC-5 Paul Schoenfelder wrote:
>>
>>
>> My thoughts on the proposal itself aside, I’d just like to say that I
>> think you’ve set a great example of what proposals on this list should look
>> like. Well done!
>>
>> I have an almost visceral reaction to the use of capture syntax for this
>> though, and I don’t believe any of the languages you mentioned that support
>> field punning do so in this fashion. They all use a similar intuitive
>> syntax where the variable matches the field name, and they don’t make any
>> effort to support string keys.
>>
>> If Elixir is to ever support field punning, I strongly believe it should
>> follow their example. However, there are reasons why Elixir cannot do so
>> due to syntax ambiguities (IIRC). In my mind, that makes any effort to
>> introduce this feature a non-starter, because code should be first and
>> foremost easy to read, and I have yet to see a proposal for this that
>> doesn’t make the code harder to read and understand, including this one.
>>
>> I’d like to have field punning, but by addressing, if possible, the core
>> issue that is blocking it. If that can’t be done, I just don’t think the
>> cost of overloading unrelated syntax is worth it. I think calling the `&…`
>> syntax “capture syntax” is actually misleading, and only has that name
>> because it can be used to construct closures by “capturing” a function
>> name, but it is more accurate to consider it closure syntax, in my opinion.
>> Overloading it to mean capturing things in a more general sense will be
>> confusing for everyone, and would only work in a few restricted forms,
>> which makes it more difficult to teach and learn.
>>
>> That’s my two cents anyway, I think you did a great job with the
>> proposal, but I’m very solidly against it as the solution to the problem
>> being solved.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023, at 7:56 PM, Christopher Keele wrote:
>>
>> This is a formalization of my concept here
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/elixir-lang-core/c/oFbaOT7rTeU/m/BWF24zoAAgAJ>,
>> as a first-class proposal for explicit discussion/feedback, since I now
>> have a working prototype
>> <https://github.com/elixir-lang/elixir/compare/main...christhekeele:elixir:tagged-variable-capture>
>> .
>>
>> *Goal*
>>
>> The aim of this proposal is to support a commonly-requested feature:
>> *short-hand
>> construction and pattern matching of key/value pairs of associative data
>> structures, based on variable names* in the current scope.
>>
>> *Context*
>>
>> Similar shorthand syntax sugar exists in many programming languages
>> today, known variously as:
>>
>> - Field Punning <https://dev.realworldocaml.org/records.html> — OCaml
>> - Record Puns
>>
>> <https://ghc.gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/doc/users_guide/exts/record_puns.html>
>> — Haskell
>> - Object Property Value Shorthand
>>
>> <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/Object_initializer#property_definitions>
>>
>> — ES6 Javascript
>>
>> This feature has been in discussion for a decade, on this mailing list (1
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/elixir-lang-core/c/4w9eOeLvt-8/m/WOkoPSMm6kEJ>,
>> 2
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/elixir-lang-core/c/NoUo2gqQR3I/m/WTpArTGMKSIJ>,
>> 3
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/elixir-lang-core/c/3XrVXEVSixc/m/NHU2M4QFAQAJ>,
>> 4
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/elixir-lang-core/c/OvSQkvXxsmk/m/bKKHbBxiCwAJ>,
>> 5
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/elixir-lang-core/c/XxnrGgZsyVc/m/1W-d_XAlBgAJ>
>> , 6 <https://groups.google.com/g/elixir-lang-core/c/oFbaOT7rTeU>)
>> and the Elixir forum (1
>> <https://elixirforum.com/t/proposal-add-field-puns-map-shorthand-to-elixir/15452>,
>>
>> 2
>> <https://elixirforum.com/t/shorthand-for-passing-variables-by-name/30583>,
>> 3
>> <https://elixirforum.com/t/if-you-could-change-one-thing-in-elixir-language-what-you-would-change/19902/17>,
>>
>> 4
>> <https://elixirforum.com/t/has-map-shorthand-syntax-in-other-languages-caused-you-any-problems/15403>,
>>
>> 5
>> <https://elixirforum.com/t/es6-ish-property-value-shorthands-for-maps/1524>,
>> 6
>> <https://elixirforum.com/t/struct-creation-pattern-matching-short-hand/7544>),
>>
>> and has motivated many libraries (1
>> <https://github.com/whatyouhide/short_maps>, 2
>> <https://github.com/meyercm/shorter_maps>, 3
>> <https://hex.pm/packages/shorthand>, 4 <https://hex.pm/packages/synex>).
>> These narrow margins cannot fit the full history of possibilities,
>> proposals, and problems with this feature, and I will not attempt to
>> summarize them all. For context, I suggest reading this mailing list
>> proposal
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/elixir-lang-core/c/XxnrGgZsyVc/m/1W-d_XAlBgAJ>
>> and this community discussion
>> <https://elixirforum.com/t/proposal-add-field-puns-map-shorthand-to-elixir/15452>
>> in
>> particular.
>>
>> However, in summary, this particular proposal tries to solve a couple of
>> past sticking points:
>>
>> 1. Atom vs String
>>
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/elixir-lang-core/c/NoUo2gqQR3I/m/IpZQHbZk4xEJ>
>> key support
>> 2. Visual clarity
>>
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/elixir-lang-core/c/XxnrGgZsyVc/m/NBkAVto0BAAJ>
>> that atom/string matching is occurring
>> 3. Limitations of string-based sigil parsing
>>
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/elixir-lang-core/c/XxnrGgZsyVc/m/TiZw6xM3BAAJ>
>> 4. Easy confusion
>>
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/elixir-lang-core/c/XxnrGgZsyVc/m/WRhXxHDfBAAJ>
>> with tuples
>>
>> I have a working fork of Elixir here
>> <https://github.com/christhekeele/elixir/tree/tagged-variable-capture>
>> where this proposed syntax can be experimented with. Be warned, it is buggy.
>>
>> *Proposal: Tagged Variable Captures*
>>
>> I propose we overload the unary capture operator (*&*) to accept
>> compile-time atoms and strings as arguments, for example *&:foo* and
>> *&"bar"*. This would *expand at compile time* into *a tagged tuple with
>> the atom/string and a variable reference*. For now, I am calling this a
>> *"tagged-variable
>> capture"* to differentiate it from a function capture.
>>
>> For the purposes of this proposal, assume:
>>
>> {foo, bar} = {1, 2}
>>
>> Additionally,
>>
>> - Lines beginning with *# == * indicate what the compiler expands an
>> expression to.
>> - Lines beginning with *# => * represent the result of evaluating
>> that expression.
>> - Lines beginning with *# !> * represent an exception.
>>
>> *Bare Captures*
>>
>> I'm not sure if we should support *bare* tagged-variable capture, but it
>> is illustrative for this proposal, so I left it in my prototype. It would
>> look like:
>>
>> &:foo
>> *# == **{:foo, foo}*
>> *# => *{:foo, 1}
>> &"foo"
>> *# == **{"foo", foo}*
>> *# => *{"foo", 1}
>>
>> If bare usage is supported, this expansion would work as expected in
>> match and guard contexts as well, since it expands before variable
>> references are resolved:
>>
>> {:foo, baz} = &:foo
>> *# == {:foo, baz} = {:foo, foo}*
>> *# => *{:foo, 1}
>> baz
>> *# => *1
>>
>> *List Captures*
>>
>> Since capture expressions are allowed in lists, this can be used to
>> construct Keyword lists from the local variable scope elegantly:
>>
>> list = [&:foo, &:bar]
>> *# == **list = [{:foo, foo}, {:bar, bar}]*
>> *# => *[foo: 1, bar: 2]
>>
>> This would work with other list operators like *|*:
>>
>> baz = 3
>> list = [&:baz | list]
>> *# == **list = [**{:baz, baz} **| **list**]*
>> *# => *[baz: 3, foo: 1, bar: 2]
>>
>> And list destructuring:
>>
>> {foo, bar, baz} = {nil, nil, nil}
>> [&:baz, &:foo, &:bar] = list
>> *# == [{:baz, baz}, {:foo, foo}, {:bar, bar}] = list*
>> *# => *[baz: 3, foo: 1, bar: 2]
>> {foo, bar, baz}
>> *# => *{1, 2, 3}
>>
>> *Map Captures*
>>
>> With a small change to the parser,
>> <https://github.com/elixir-lang/elixir/commit/0a4f5376c0f9b4db7d71514d05df6b8b6abc96a9>
>>
>> we can allow this expression inside map literals. Because this expression
>> individually gets expanded into a tagged-tuple before the map associations
>> list as a whole are processed, it allow this syntax to work in all existing
>> map/struct constructs, like map construction:
>>
>> map = %{&:foo, &"bar"}
>> *# == %{:foo => foo, "bar" => bar}*
>> *# => *%{:foo => 1, "bar" => 2}
>>
>> Map updates:
>>
>> foo = 3
>> map = %{map | &:foo}
>> *# == %{map | :foo => foo}*
>> *# => *%{:foo => 3, "bar" => 2}
>>
>> And map destructuring:
>>
>> {foo, bar} = {nil, nil}
>> %{&:foo, &"bar"} = map
>> *# == %{:foo => foo, "bar" => bar} = map*
>> *# => *%{:foo => 3, "bar" => 2}
>> {foo, bar}
>> *# => *{3, 2}
>>
>> *Considerations*
>>
>> Though just based on an errant thought
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/elixir-lang-core/c/oFbaOT7rTeU/m/BWF24zoAAgAJ>
>> that popped into my head yesterday, I'm unreasonably pleased with how well
>> this works and reads in practice. I will present my thoughts here, though
>> again I encourage you to grab my branch
>> <https://github.com/christhekeele/elixir/tree/tagged-variable-capture>,
>> compile
>> it from source
>> <https://github.com/christhekeele/elixir/tree/tagged-variable-capture#compiling-from-source>,
>> and
>> play with it yourself!
>>
>> *Pro: solves existing pain points*
>>
>> As mentioned, this solves flaws previous proposals suffer from:
>>
>> 1. Atom vs String
>>
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/elixir-lang-core/c/NoUo2gqQR3I/m/IpZQHbZk4xEJ>
>> key
>> support
>> This supports both.
>> 2. Visual clarity
>>
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/elixir-lang-core/c/XxnrGgZsyVc/m/NBkAVto0BAAJ>
>> that
>> atom/string matching is occurring
>> This leverages the appropriate literal in question within the syntax
>> sugar.
>> 3. Limitations of string-based sigil parsing
>>
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/elixir-lang-core/c/XxnrGgZsyVc/m/TiZw6xM3BAAJ>
>> This is compiler-expansion-native.
>> 4. Easy confusion
>>
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/elixir-lang-core/c/XxnrGgZsyVc/m/WRhXxHDfBAAJ>
>> with
>> tuples
>> %{&:foo, &"bar"} is very different from {foo, bar}, instead of
>> 1-character different.
>>
>> Additionally, it solves my main complaint with historical proposals:
>> syntax to combine a variable identifier with a literal must either obscure
>> that we are building an identifier, or obscure the key/string typing of the
>> literal.
>>
>> I'm proposing overloading the capture operator rather than introducing a
>> new operator because the capture operator already has a semantic
>> association with messing with variable scope, via the nested integer-based
>> positional function argument syntax (ex *& &1*).
>>
>> By using the capture operator we indicate that we are messing with an
>> identifier in scope, but via a literal atom/string we want to associate
>> with, to get the best of both worlds.
>>
>> *Pro: works with existing code*
>>
>> The capture today operator has well-defined compile-time-error semantics
>> if you try to pass it an atom or a string. All compiling Elixir code today
>> will continue to compile as before.
>>
>> *Pro: works with existing tooling*
>>
>> By overloading an existing operator, this approach works seamlessly for
>> me with the syntax highlighters I have tried it with so far, and reasonable
>> with the formatter.
>>
>> In my experimentation I've found that the formatter wants to rewrite *&:baz
>> *to *(&:baz)* pretty often. That's good, because there are several edge
>> cases in my prototype where not doing so causes it to behave strangely; I'm
>> sure it's resolving ambiguities that would occur in function captures that
>> impact my proposal in ways I have yet fully anticipated.
>>
>> *Pros: minimizes surface area of the language*
>>
>> By overriding the capture operator instead of introducing a new operator
>> or sigil, we are able to keep the surface area of this feature slim.
>>
>> *Cons: overloads the capture operator*
>>
>> Of course, much of the virtues of this proposal comes from overloading
>> the capture operator. But it is an already semantically fraught syntactic
>> sugar construct that causes confusion to newcomers, and this would place
>> more strain on it.
>>
>> We would need to augment it with more than the meager error message
>> modification
>> <https://github.com/elixir-lang/elixir/commit/3d83d21ada860d03cece8c6f90dbcf7bf9e737ec#diff-92b98063d1e86837fae15261896c265ab502b8d556141aaf1c34e67a3ef3717cL199-R207>
>> in
>> my prototype, as well as documentation and anticipate a new wave of
>> questions from the community upon release.
>>
>> This inelegance really shows when considering embedding a tagged variable
>> capture inside an anonymous function capture, ex *& &1 = &:foo*. In my
>> prototype I've chosen to allow this rather than error on "nested captures
>> not allowed" (would probably become: "nested *function* captures not
>> allowed"), but I'm not sure I found all the edge-cases of mixing them in
>> all possible constructions.
>>
>> Additionally, since my proposal now allows the capture operator as an
>> associative element inside map literal parsing, that would change the
>> syntax error reported by providing a function capture as an associative
>> element to be generated during expansion rather than during parsing. I am
>> not fluent enough in leex to have have updated the parser to preserve the
>> exact old error, but serendipitously what it reports in my prototype today
>> is pretty good regardless, but I prefer the old behaviour:
>>
>> Old:
>> %{& &1}
>> *# !> **** (SyntaxError) syntax error before '}'*
>> *# !> * |
>> *# !> * 1 | %{& &1}
>> *# !> * | ^
>> New:
>> %{& &1}
>> *# => error: expected key-value pairs in a map, got: & &1*
>> *# => ** (CompileError) cannot compile code (errors have been logged)*
>>
>> *Cons: here there be dragons I cannot see*
>>
>> I'm quite sure a full implementation would require a lot more knowledge
>> of the compiler than I am able to provide. For example, *&:foo = &:foo
>> *raises
>> an exception where *(&:foo) = &:foo* behaves as expected. I also find
>> the variable/context/binding environment implementation in the erlang part
>> of the compiler during expansion to be impenetrable, and I'm sure my
>> prototype fails on edge cases there.
>>
>> *Open Question: the pin operator*
>>
>> As this feature constructs a variable ref for you, it is not clear if/how
>> we should support attempts to pin the generated variable to avoid new
>> bindings. In my prototype, I have tried to support the pin operator via the
>> *&^:atom *syntax, though I'm pretty sure it's super buggy on bare
>> out-of-data-structure cases and I only got it far enough to work in
>> function heads for basic function head map pattern matching.
>>
>> *Open Question: charlists*
>>
>> I did not add support for charlist tagged variable captures in my
>> prototype, as it would be more involved to differentiate a capture of list
>> mean to become a tagged tuple from a list representing the AST of a
>> function capture. I would not lose a lot of sleep over this.
>>
>> *Open Question: allowed contexts*
>>
>> Would we even want to allow this syntax construct outside of map
>> literals? Or list literals?
>>
>> I can certainly see people abusing the
>> bare-outside-of-associative-datastructure syntax to make some neigh
>> impenetrable code where it's really unclear where assignment and pattern
>> matching is occuring, and relatedly this is where I see a lot of odd
>> edge-case behaviour in my prototype. I allowed it to speed up the
>> implementation, but it merits more discussion.
>>
>> On the other hand, this does seem like an... interesting use-case:
>>
>> error = "rate limit exceeded"
>> &:error *# return error tuple*
>>
>> *Thanks for reading! What do you think?*
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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/ad7e0313-4207-4cb7-a5f3-d824735830abn%40googlegroups.com
>>
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/ad7e0313-4207-4cb7-a5f3-d824735830abn%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/2b46232e-04f1-4b21-87e6-9c098741cd36n%40googlegroups.com
>>
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/2b46232e-04f1-4b21-87e6-9c098741cd36n%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.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/8b4fa272-f13f-4342-b258-2efb99cc3928n%40googlegroups.com.
