[erlang-questions] DRY principle and the syntax inconsistency in fun vs. vanilla functions

Steve Davis <>
Thu May 19 10:32:26 CEST 2011

Hi Michael,

This example is far from convincing. Have you tried this for yourself on 
any but the most trivial case, and done a genuine comparison? If you 
had, I think you would actually agree with my point that it would end up 
being less readable.


On 5/18/2011 11:28 PM, Michael Turner wrote:
> Brokenness is not the only fault a system can have. As far as I can
> tell, the worst consequence of the proposed change is that you'd start
> seeing code that looked like this:
> fact
>    (0) -> 1;
>    (N) -> N*fact(N-1).
> which is transparently obvious. So the argument that the change somehow
> makes code less readable makes no sense to me.
> -michael turner

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list