By integrating into the language, I mean in a way that it would yield large
benefits only if made part of the language. The proposed solution and
Decimal yield almost no benefits if part of Elixir compared to as a
package, besides reachability.
Also, the current proposal for coerce doesn't handle
Hello Jose,
I completely understand where you are coming from.
The main reason to add this to the core language is to standardize the
return format of comparison functions. I believe this to be a very
important idea.
*Upcasting* as in the case of Decimals can be supported using the
coercion-m
Hi Wiebe-Marten Wijnja,
Thanks for the well-written proposal.
I am afraid my opinion has not changed much from the first time around.
The proposed solution would not support the "downcasting" done in
`Date.compare`. `Decimal` may also want to perform casting as well.
And while I understand why i
The 'indexed data structure' that is often used now in many projects is the
built-in (Hash)Map that the newer versions of Erlang/OTP provide. The keys
of a map kan be seen as a poor-man's pointers if you want to have
(amortized) constant field access and update behaviour data structure. This
is
I'm strongly in favor of the proposal, it is an ideal use of protocols
(and we aren't facing a non-BIF penalty).
— Parker
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017, at 03:51 PM, OvermindDL1 wrote:
> Sounds like precisely what is needed. I'm all for it!
>
>
> On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 2:16:59 PM UTC-6, Wiebe-Marte
Sounds like precisely what is needed. I'm all for it!
On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 2:16:59 PM UTC-6, Wiebe-Marten Wijnja wrote:
>
> Going back to the core of this issue, I'd like for there to be a simple
> function `compare` with an accompanied Protocol, which ensures that the
> comparison retu
After looking through the source of Elixir's `Enum` module and Erlang's
`:lists` module, I now know that `:lists.sort` is implemented in plain
Erlang, which means that it would also be possible to write multiple
versions in Elixir (Most notably, both an low-to-high and high-to-low
version). `En
Hi Jose,
Thank you so much for that information, that's so helpful! I think I'll do
it exactly like you laid out. :)
Eli
On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 2:12:44 AM UTC-4, José Valim wrote:
>
> We don't plan to support other SCMs in Mix itself but you should be able
> to augment Mix using Mix.SCM.
Great, I'll work on this.
Michał.
On 16 Jun 2017, 15:13 +0200, José Valim ,
wrote:
> "error_module.message(error)" sounds good, yes!
>
>
>
> José Valim
> www.plataformatec.com.br
> Skype: jv.ptec
> Founder and Director of R&D
>
> > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Michał Muskała wrote:
> > > I
"error_module.message(error)" sounds good, yes!
*José Valim*
www.plataformatec.com.br
Skype: jv.ptec
Founder and Director of R&D
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Michał Muskała wrote:
> I don't think running Exception.message will cut it, since it will output
> a string that the message/1 imp
I don't think running Exception.message will cut it, since it will output a
string that the message/1 implementation failed. Ideally, I wish the test would
fail in that case.
One solution would be to call error_module.message(error) manually, but this
would mean ex_unit needs to replicate logic
Great catch. Yes, let's always invoke Exception.message on it, even if you
don't match on it.
*José Valim*
www.plataformatec.com.br
Skype: jv.ptec
Founder and Director of R&D
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Michał Muskała wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> Right now, when using assert_raise/2 (wi
Hello everybody,
Right now, when using assert_raise/2 (without passing the message) the test
succeeds even if the exception itself has bad implementation of the message/1
function and raises.
I propose that assert_raise should fail whenever such a broken exception
implementation is encountered
13 matches
Mail list logo
