[erlang-questions] DRY principle and the syntax inconsistency in fun vs. vanilla functions
Thu May 19 10:32:26 CEST 2011
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:
> (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