On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Max Goldstein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Those in favor of where clauses, would you mind summarizing any arguments > from the thread that do not rely on personal preference but concrete > improvements to code readability or maintainability, in a way not achieved > by Joey's suggestion? We are looking for code examples in which > where-clauses either let you do something let-clauses don't, or are visibly > superior to them. > I don't think that it is unreasonable to ask for 3 examples in which one has real code expressed with *let-in* and the same code expressed with *where. *The code should make it crystal clear that the where version is simpler, more beginner friendly (for people coming from JS) and has a better chance to be understood 6 months down the line. Without these motivating cases, the argument would look dangerously close to "I'm familiar with another way of expressing the same concept and I think current Elm programmers and future Elm programmers should pay the price of dealing with a more complicated language to cater to my needs." I work best with pattern matching good code. If I have 3 distinct examples I think I can pattern match the better pattern. :) List.indexedMap (\i x -> let bar = f x.foo in g i bar) aList Why is the above code better than List.indexedMap (\i x -> g i (f x.foo)) aList -- There is NO FATE, we are the creators. blog: http://damoc.ro/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
