I guess what I'm ultimately confused about is what *absolutely necessitates* a runtime dependency becoming a transitive compile time dependency. To me, that sounds like excellent *default* behavior.
In the case of Ash resources, they are introspectable configurations. Some modules that you get back when inspecting that configuration make sense to "do something with" at compile time. Others absolutely don't. In Ash these things are modeled as behaviours because that is the way that I can define a functional contract. Not being able to refer to modules in this way essentially forces us to bypass the compiler. The way that I'm doing it currently works, incurs no runtime or compile time bugs, and the only drawback is that nothing tells the compiler that you've used any corresponding alias. Anyone doing something like the following at compile time: ```elixir # in MyApp.Accounts.User create :register_user do change HashPassword #makes your app slower for no benefit end # MyApp.Accounts.User # |> Ash.Resource.Info.actions ( http://ash.resource.info.actions/ ) () # |> do_some_metaprogramming_with_that() ``` is fully aware that you can't do anything with the list of changes that are configured for the action, with the exception of know what the module name is. I really don't see any problem with this design. The way that this differs from surface is that users build compile time tools that refer to their resources, and pointing at one of these modules can cause large compile time issues that are just not necessary. Nothing about the resource will ever change because something in the `change` module changed. You're not allowed to call them at compile time, so nothing downstream will change. i.e if `HashPassword` looks like this: ```elixir defmodule HashPassword do use Ash.Resource.Change @impl true def change(user = %MyApp.Accounts.User{profile: MyApp.Accounts.Profile{}}) do ... end end ``` Now anything that depends on `MyApp.Accounts.User` at compile time also depends on `MyApp.Accounts.Profile`, but Ash has all the information to do whatever is required to make that not true (which is currently to disable the lexical tracker). The `HashPassword` module should recompile on changes to `MyApp.Accounts.User` or `MyApp.Accounts.Profile`, but the aforementioned transitive compile time dependency is, to me, entirely unnecessary. I don't want to be a hassle or be confrontational, but this design pattern is very ingrained into Ash, and has served its users (who have shipped multiple production apps) well for some time now, so if I'm going to make them change it, or accept the fact that `alias` currently requires supplying `warn: false` (or accept significantly longer compile times on their behalf), I want to make completely sure that I understand the reason, and that Ash users are getting a benefit aside from not needing to use `warn: false` on their aliases. I'm also more than happy to take you through what a simple usage of Ash looks like, why these modules look the way they do, or anything else that might provide context. I know its entirely possible that you could shine some light onto either 1. why this is necessary or 2. a better way to do things that wouldn't involve massive change for Ash users On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 5:29 PM, José Valim < [email protected] > wrote: > > What I am saying is that you need to rethink the approach altogether. :) > > > > As you said, the issue is with compile-time dependencies. Rewriting > compile-time dependencies to export dependencies and changing signatures > for recompilation is a brittle work-around the compiler. > > > > With @after_verify, you should be able to treat all of them as runtime > dependencies, and let the @after_verify callback be invoked whenever you > are supposed to verify them again. :) This means you no longer need to > track compile, exports, etc. The compiler is doing all the job for you! > > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 11:18 PM Marlus Saraiva < marlus. saraiva@ gmail. com > ( [email protected] ) > wrote: > > >> Ok, but as far as I remember, @after_verify can be used for validations >> but not for triggering recompilation of caller modules. Does the compiler >> validate the result of that callback? I tried to return different values >> than :ok but it does not seem to make any difference. >> >> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 10:43:35 AM UTC-3 José Valim wrote: >> >> >>> Yes, the functionality you ask is the @after_verify callback in Elixir >>> v1.14. It is used by LiveView to provide functionality similar to Surface >>> and also the new Phoenix.VerifiedRoutes. :) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 14:43 Marlus Saraiva < marlus.... @ gmail. com > >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hi Zach! >>>> >>>> >>>> The only way you can minimize the transitive dependency problem is by >>>> removing the compile-time deps. I struggled with this for years with >>>> Surface, and as you did, I tried the approach of removing the runtime deps >>>> to avoid them from turning into transitive compile-time deps. Eventually, >>>> I realized that avoiding compile-time deps would be the only way to have a >>>> permanent solution and started removing any implementation that required >>>> information at compile-time. As soon as LV v0.8 is out, we'll wrap up that >>>> work, so we don't expect further issues after that. In the meantime, to >>>> solve the problem, I added a fix that drastically cut down those >>>> dependencies, which was to convert the `compile` deps into `export` deps, >>>> by using `import` instead of `require`. For this to work properly, I have >>>> to generate and automatically rename a signature function to force the >>>> recompilation of direct callers whenever the component's metadata (props, >>>> slots, etc) changes. Otherwise, it would only recompile them if you added >>>> or removed another function. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It seems to me that Elixir could provide a way to hook into the compiler >>>> allowing DSL developers to inform a criteria that could be used to trigger >>>> callers' recompilation. Similar to `__mix_recompile__?`. Maybe something >>>> like `__export_changed__?` or anything else. With this approach, DSL >>>> authors could replace the `compile` deps with `export` deps as long as the >>>> changes in that dependency don't need to be propagated to other modules >>>> other than the callers. This is the case for Surface and many other libs, >>>> like Commanded, for instance. I'm not sure the proposed solution would >>>> solve your issue with Ash but I thought it was worth bringing it here >>>> since it may solve issues on other libs. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> José, is something like that feasible? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 8:37:24 PM UTC-3 zachary.... @ gmail. com >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Well, its runtime dependencies that create transitive compile time >>>>> dependencies, isn't it? So if I have a function like >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> defmodule Foo do >>>>> # callers are aware that they can't use the module at compile time >>>>> def returns_a_module() do >>>>> >>>>> SomeSpecificModule >>>>> >>>>> end >>>>> >>>>> def something_used_at_compile_time() do >>>>> 10 >>>>> end >>>>> end >>>>> >>>>> # and then some other module >>>>> >>>>> defmodule Bar do >>>>> @something Foo.something_used_at_compile_time() >>>>> end >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This induces a transitive compile time dependency from Bar to >>>>> SomeSpecificModule. >>>>> >>>>> In the case of Ash DSLs, for example, this happens because we store the >>>>> resulting configuration in a module attribute. Users are aware that you >>>>> can't call these pluggable modules at compile time. Only the framework >>>>> code calls those modules. The above example is contrived, of course, I'm >>>>> not suggesting that we need a feature to make *that* work, just trying to >>>>> draw some kind of parallel. >>>>> >>>>> I don't see a reasonable way to handle this without essentially removing >>>>> the ability to use modules in the way that we are. It would be a pretty >>>>> unreasonable amount of work/change for users to change the way that we >>>>> plug behavior in Ash. >>>>> >>>>> To me, another kind of module dependency, like `runtime-only`, would solve >>>>> for this, and it would have to be explicitly requested, i.e >>>>> `expand_literal(.., runtime_only: true)`. Then when determining transitive >>>>> compile time dependencies, the compiler would not use those modules. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 6:51 PM, José Valim < jose.... @ dashbit. co > >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> As I mentioned, the issue on transitive compile-time dependencies are the >>>>>> compile-time deps, not the runtime ones. So I would focus on how to >>>>>> eliminate those. Otherwise I am not sure we will agree on the problem >>>>>> statement. :) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 12:49 AM Zach Daniel < zachary.... @ gmail. com > >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Although the solution I originally proposed may not be correct (totally >>>>>>> fine with me 😃), I think the problem statement is still valid. Can we >>>>>>> agree that there are some cases where you may want to reference a module >>>>>>> without creating transitive compile time dependencies, i.e in the case >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> a DSL like what Ash provides? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 3:08 PM, Zach Daniel < zachary.... @ gmail. com >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hm...yeah, that makes sense. Are there other things a runtime >>>>>>>> dependency >>>>>>>> is meant to do aside from ensure that transitive compile time >>>>>>>> dependencies >>>>>>>> are properly tracked? If so, is there a way to solve for the transitive >>>>>>>> dependencies without removing the runtime dependency? Because >>>>>>>> ultimately >>>>>>>> the idea here is that this module is essentially just a big >>>>>>>> validated/extensible configuration. The resource itself doesn't do >>>>>>>> anything. So requiring things that refer to a resource to recompile >>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>> any of the modules it refers to in a `change` like that is unnecessary. >>>>>>>> However we can express that reality is totally fine with me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 3:05:18 PM UTC-4 José Valim wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The issue is in the transitive compile time dependencies, not the >>>>>>>>> runtime >>>>>>>>> dependencies. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't think we should be encouraging removing the runtime >>>>>>>>> dependencies >>>>>>>>> when they are explicitly listed in the code as above. When done via >>>>>>>>> configuration, at least you are not literally listing it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 8:59 PM Zach Daniel < zachary.... @ gmail. >>>>>>>>> com > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So all we we do is hold onto the module, and then at runtime we go >>>>>>>>>> through >>>>>>>>>> the list of modules that we should call and call a specific function >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> them. Requiring a runtime dependency for that is causing really slow >>>>>>>>>> compile times because of transitive dependencies. Maybe there is some >>>>>>>>>> consequence I don't see, but I removed the runtime dependencies by >>>>>>>>>> disabling the lexical tracker when expanding the alias, and its been >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> way for months w/o anyone reporting any issues with that >>>>>>>>>> implementation. >>>>>>>>>> Aside from having to use `warn: false` if they use aliases. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To me, its the same as if they gave us, instead of a module, an >>>>>>>>>> `atom` >>>>>>>>>> that referred to application configuration, i.e the adapter pattern. >>>>>>>>>> That >>>>>>>>>> would work without a runtime dependency, so why couldn't this? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 2:56 PM, José Valim < jose.... @ dashbit. co >>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, correction: If, at any moment, you call any function from >>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> module at runtime, you must not remove the *runtime* time >>>>>>>>>>> dependency. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 8:55 PM José Valim < jose.... @ dashbit. co >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you want to remove the runtime dependency when, per your >>>>>>>>>>>> description: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> > In Ash Framework, we have declarative ways to construct >>>>>>>>>>>> > *runtime* behavior >>>>>>>>>>>> using behaviors. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Emphasis mine. If, at any moment, you call any function from that >>>>>>>>>>>> module >>>>>>>>>>>> at runtime, you must not remove the compile time dependency. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 8:52 PM Zach Daniel < zachary.... @ gmail. >>>>>>>>>>>> com > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> `expand_literal` removes the compile time dependency, but leaves >>>>>>>>>>>>> a runtime >>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency when used inside of a module. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What I'm trying to do is remove both the compile time dependency >>>>>>>>>>>>> *and* the >>>>>>>>>>>>> runtime dependency, without requiring the use of `warn: false` on >>>>>>>>>>>>> aliases. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 2:31:42 PM UTC-4 José Valim >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, I don't understand the proposal. You mentioned >>>>>>>>>>>>>> expand_literal, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which already removes the compile-time dependency but keeps the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining >>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality such as warnings. Can you please expand? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 7:57 PM Zach Daniel < zachary.... @ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gmail. com > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For clarity, the dependency I'm talking about there is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `MyApp.User` to `MyApp.User.Changes.HashPassword`. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 1:55:51 PM UTC-4 Zach Daniel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In Ash Framework, we have declarative ways to construct >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runtime behavior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using behaviors. So an Ash resource might look like this: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ```elixir >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defmodule MyApp.User do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use Ash.Resource >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alias MyApp.User.Changes.HashPassword >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attributes do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uuid_primary_key :id >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actions do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create :register do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change HashPassword >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ``` >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, by default, this would incur a compile time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency. This >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compile time dependency is unnecessary, as we won't call any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this module or use it in any way until runtime. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That optimization is well and good, but due to transitive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compile time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies, we see some interesting behavior. Something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you'd often see >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a change module is things like pattern matching on other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the resource in question in function heads. Resources are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meant to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introspectable at compile time, and so this runtime dependency >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change, with a compile time dependency on a resource, incurs a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compile time dependency. This problem multiplies over time, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and causes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users to have to do things solely to optimize compile times, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like only use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> map pattern matches instead of struct pattern matches. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what we do is we actually disable the lexical tracker when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain parts of the DSL. This prevents *any* dependency. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Naturally, at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compile time you are no longer safe to call a resource's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change module as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes in that module won't cause recompiles, but that was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never a thing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you should have done in the first place so I'm not worried >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This leads us to the primary issue: disabling the lexical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tracker when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expanding aliases also causes warnings about unused aliases, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even though >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they *are* used. I believe I've brought this issue up before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and we were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hoping that the feature introduced in 1.14 for `defimpl` would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that only helps prevent compile time issues, which is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something I had >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already solved for in the same way it was solved for 1.14. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've laid it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all out to help clarify exactly *why* I need it so perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point me in a better direction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simplest thing that could help: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A way to tell the lexical tracker that an alias has just been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referenced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without inducing any kind of compile or runtime dependency. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea is to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just prevent it from warning about the alias. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm open to other solutions as well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 54627973-7b74-47d7-9e35-4270621e6c91n%40googlegroups. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> com ( >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/54627973-7b74-47d7-9e35-4270621e6c91n%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/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> 22887a7e-a1b6-4ccc-98bf-69a5ad3551a5n%40googlegroups. >>>>>>>>>>>>> com ( >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/22887a7e-a1b6-4ccc-98bf-69a5ad3551a5n%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/ >>>>>>>>>>> CAGnRm4%2BVkL%2B1V7LTDVyzhCqcNWrmHFPoWx2Fp916Ur%2ByL%2BiVBA%40mail. >>>>>>>>>>> gmail. com ( >>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/CAGnRm4%2BVkL%2B1V7LTDVyzhCqcNWrmHFPoWx2Fp916Ur%2ByL%2BiVBA%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 elixir-lang-co... @ googlegroups. com. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https:/ / groups. google. >>>>>>>>>> com/ d/ >>>>>>>>>> msgid/ elixir-lang-core/ l7xp6eut. >>>>>>>>>> 444ff913-f528-4b88-805a-cac120cdb4d6%40we. >>>>>>>>>> are. superhuman. com ( >>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/l7xp6eut.444ff913-f528-4b88-805a-cac120cdb4d6%40we.are.superhuman.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/ >>>>>>>> 072bb99d-09a0-4567-a934-f8893015dd91n%40googlegroups. >>>>>>>> com ( >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/072bb99d-09a0-4567-a934-f8893015dd91n%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/ l80s9s37. >>>>>>> 13dfe243-83b3-4133-8aad-7a86910f56fa%40we. >>>>>>> are. superhuman. com ( >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/l80s9s37.13dfe243-83b3-4133-8aad-7a86910f56fa%40we.are.superhuman.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/ >>>>>> CAGnRm4J8qxM%3DKxMUUW6X%2Bt%2BrD9rKn0yDHbDY1fDgopxRvtNn5A%40mail. >>>>>> gmail. com ( >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/CAGnRm4J8qxM%3DKxMUUW6X%2Bt%2BrD9rKn0yDHbDY1fDgopxRvtNn5A%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 elixir-lang-co... @ googlegroups. com. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https:/ / groups. google. com/ d/ >>>> msgid/ elixir-lang-core/ >>>> 325ea272-674a-4a5a-9228-6af11579bd05n%40googlegroups. >>>> com ( >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/325ea272-674a-4a5a-9228-6af11579bd05n%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+unsubscribe@ googlegroups. com ( >> [email protected] ). >> To view this discussion on the web visit https:/ / groups. google. com/ d/ >> msgid/ elixir-lang-core/ >> 73a308e4-59e9-4f23-bb92-1417855cc996n%40googlegroups. >> com ( >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/73a308e4-59e9-4f23-bb92-1417855cc996n%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+unsubscribe@ googlegroups. com ( > [email protected] ). > To view this discussion on the web visit https:/ / groups. google. com/ d/ > msgid/ elixir-lang-core/ > CAGnRm4KrE3xy3PnQecUP0HM%2BMNx6dboS0Ar50p8cBW9qAAwP-w%40mail. > gmail. com ( > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/CAGnRm4KrE3xy3PnQecUP0HM%2BMNx6dboS0Ar50p8cBW9qAAwP-w%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/l89ai0f7.397c6fd9-8736-4a20-8240-df10067d1ef9%40we.are.superhuman.com.
