Re: [elixir-core:6705] I think the new 1.4 warning about missing () on zero arity functions is a cure that's worse than the disease

Personally, I've been gravitating toward the explicitness of `fun_call()` over `fun_call`, but have been on the fence about the warning. Something occurred to me while reading this conversation, though: I think this change means that *any* attempted shadowing in Elixir will yield a warning or

Re: [elixir-core:6703] I think the new 1.4 warning about missing () on zero arity functions is a cure that's worse than the disease

I am very for not only this warnings but making it entirely in to an error. Perhaps only defmacro's should be allowed to be called without parenthesis and all functions defined with `def` otherwise must have parenthesis. Although I'd also be for going the other way, removing parenthesis (and

Re: [elixir-core:6701] I think the new 1.4 warning about missing () on zero arity functions is a cure that's worse than the disease

> > The reason this feels unconvincing to me is because the situations > where this comes up would be very infrequent for me. That's a very good point I forgot to take into account in my initial reply. Thank you! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: [elixir-core:6700] I think the new 1.4 warning about missing () on zero arity functions is a cure that's worse than the disease

Has anyone watched Avdi's episode on barewords? https://www.rubytapas.com/2012/10/01/episode-004-barewords/ (I haven't checked whether this one is free or requires a subscription.) The concept seems to apply to what Dave was requesting. On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 11:09 AM Amos King

Re: [elixir-core:6699] I think the new 1.4 warning about missing () on zero arity functions is a cure that's worse than the disease

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 wrote: > > I would also argue for case 3. > >> However, it does not solve the contextual overhead, When changing

Re: [elixir-core:6698] I think the new 1.4 warning about missing () on zero arity functions is a cure that's worse than the disease

I would also argue for case 3. > However, it does not solve the contextual overhead, When changing or reading > code, I still need to carefully look at the surrounding context to see if the > variable is not being used in order to avoid the warning (or I can write the > code and wait for the

Re: [elixir-core:6697] I think the new 1.4 warning about missing () on zero arity functions is a cure that's worse than the disease

Throwing my 2c in: I'm for emitting the warning all the way. I vastly prefer reducing the cognitive load to "pretty" code, and personally I consider the call with parens way prettier than the call without (as it's clear that it's a function call, and there is no ambiguity). May be not strictly

Re: [elixir-core:6697] I think the new 1.4 warning about missing () on zero arity functions is a cure that's worse than the disease

I bow to the collective (well, actually, to the people with write access)... :) -- 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

Re: [elixir-core:6695] I think the new 1.4 warning about missing () on zero arity functions is a cure that's worse than the disease

I used to be on Dave’s side of the argument, but after seeing people get bit by the ambiguity over and over, including myself, I’m definitely for this change. Even with a heightened awareness of the issue, I still find I will occasionally waste cycles on frustrating debugging to find it was a

Re: [elixir-core:6693] I think the new 1.4 warning about missing () on zero arity functions is a cure that's worse than the disease

Sorry for one extra amendment: I also want to add that, if my replies are not clear, I will gladly expand and give more examples. The point is that we need more feedback than "you should warn only when there is a function and a variable". *José Valim* www.plataformatec.com.br Skype: jv.ptec

Re: [elixir-core:6692] I think the new 1.4 warning about missing () on zero arity functions is a cure that's worse than the disease

To further clarify the previous response, we have three options: 1. Do not warn if a variable is used as a function call (Elixir v1.3) 2. Warn if a variable is used as a function call (Elixir v1.4) 3. Warn if there is a variable and a function with the same name (proposed in this thread) The

Re: [elixir-core:6691] I think the new 1.4 warning about missing () on zero arity functions is a cure that's worse than the disease

> I think that if you have introduced a var anywhere in your module that has the same name as a zero arity function then this warning should be shown that solves all the problems that have been stated. I have explained in a previous reply why this is harmful and why it does not solve all the

Re: [elixir-core:6691] I think the new 1.4 warning about missing () on zero arity functions is a cure that's worse than the disease

I think that if you have introduced a var anywhere in your module that has the same name as a zero arity function then this warning should be shown that solves all the problems that have been stated. We compile our code with warnings as errors so it's very important for us to have warnings

Re: [elixir-core:6688] I think the new 1.4 warning about missing () on zero arity functions is a cure that's worse than the disease

> I just want to throw in my two cents. I don't think a warning should be > generated if there is no ambiguity about a name. > Please re-read my replies and let me know if it is still not clear. The simple fact this feature exists, it means every time you are changing or reading code, you have an