Lucas Francisco da Matta Vegi

Hi Santiago, this point raised by you is really interesting. Our examples and refactorings are not intended to cover all implementation and deployment possibilities. We provide them with a more...

I am the first author of this paper. Today I decided to check and saw that it wasn't on the Erlang Ecosystem Foundation website. When I went to create an...

Hi @pdgonzalez872 ! I believe you are correct. The excessive use of imports can indeed hinder the 'traceability' of the origin of certain functions when we are reading and trying...

@pdgonzalez872 You're not going crazy, that's for sure! 😄 Leave it to me. I'll try to develop the idea of this potential smell

Hello @novaugust, thank you for the comment! I completely understand your point and agree with you. However, it would be very exhausting and voluminous to exemplify all possible scenarios for...

I don't oppose changing the name of the refactoring, feel free to make suggestions. Overall, I believe that the description of the motivation behind this refactoring reflects well the goals...

> Cheers, so the pipe wasn't the important bit, the higher order step was :) "Reduce number of function calls by using higher order functions"? This is a great suggestion!...

> I think it'd be amazing to have some of your refactorings implemented as [Credo static analysis](https://github.com/rrrene/credo) checks. They don't necessarily need to be merged into credo upstream either, as...

> @lucasvegi Is there a plan for this? Or should we consider this "out of scope" for this repo? 😄 Hello my friend, to be very honest, although we believe...

> Before attempting to implement anything, I've started [a spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EL62b_V3aCoCo8H1BE6e4dW_tq38a0O6xJCPYnTQbj0/edit?usp=sharing) to take care of matching each refactoring to an associated Credo check. 😄 Amazing!