Happy new year, everyone.
Janis, the following compiles for me:
zing :: Num t => [t] -> t
zing list = case list of
[] -> a
where a = 1
a:as -> b
where b = a + 1
Max, you may have jumped to a conclusion. From my point of view, the
discussion (at least on the mailing list) has barely begun. The
"for-and-against" points were laid out, as well as counter-points for the
"against" points, and none have been addressed. Furthermore, Janis and I
have essentially converged on "add `where` but keep `let`". Code doesn't
have to break. Otherwise, it's only been us three talking so far. No one
else has really chimed in yet, including Evan.
> there isn't single concrete example or use-case that definitively proves
one side is superior
This isn't the case if one accepts "intent first" and its benefits. If you
do, *every* concrete code example using `where` becomes definitive proof.
> it's a pity that we're spending all this time on it
This comes off as an attempt to end the discussion before it begins. Unless
you know something we don't? Will Evan never consider improvements to
syntax? Will he refuse to read this thread? Is he the kind of person who is
adverse to criticism in general? I've never met him personally, but I'm
sure he's very well-intentioned. That said, conflict breeds evolution and
improvement. Elm needs people to tell it that it isn't good enough, and
that's what I and the flood of past and future people wanting `where` in
Elm are saying.
--
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.
