Hello,
past discussions about adding the where clause to Elm typically suggested to
use it as syntax sugar for the let.
As far understand, this is how things are done in Haskell. Moreover, using the
where is very natural there as syntax order follows the lazy evaluation
strategy making it easier to reason about things.
This does not work for Elm as the language is strict. Yet strictness is only
relevant for expressions, not function definitions. So perhaps restricting the
where only for local function definitions similarly to Idris (strict language)
may work for Elm?
Compare:
let triple x = x * x * x
in
List.map triple listOfInts
versus
List.map triple listOfInts
where
triple x = x * x * x
For me the let version looks uglier as the syntax order is reverse of the
evaluation.
For this reason I have noticed that I do not like to move complex lambdas into
local functions. Rather I wait until they become even more complex. Then I make
them top-level functions defined *after* the function that uses them.
--
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.
