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

Michael Turner <>
Fri May 20 16:13:19 CEST 2011


"And why do you think I don't use Clojure?"

Uh, Richard, where did he say he thought that?

-michael turner

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Richard O'Keefe <> wrote:

>
> On 19/05/2011, at 5:03 AM, Jack Moffitt wrote:
>
> >> I'm still waiting for the answer to the real showstopper question: would
> any
> >> existing code break, under my proposal?
> >
> > Assuming the answer is no, then I think it's fine to fix the
> > inconsistency an add this alternate notation.
>
> No, it's not fine.
>
> It fixes the WRONG END of the inconsistency.
> It's like saying "Ooh, these people have two legs and those
> people have one leg, the easiest thing to do is to cut one
> leg off those who have too."
>
> It harms readability in the eyes of a lot of people.
>
> Like I said, you would have to pay me big money to read
> code written in that style.
>
> It certainly breaks *my* pretty-printer and editor.
>
> Michael Turner is at perfect liberty to add any feature he
> likes to his copy of Erlang.  He is at liberty to offer it
> to other people.
>
> > I'll also point out that this is name-less clause syntax is the same
> > as in Clojure:
> >
> > (defn
> >  mymax
> >  ([x] x)
> >  ([x y] (if (> x y) x y))
> >  ([x y & more]
> >   (reduce mymax (mymax x y) more)))
>
> And why do you think I don't use Clojure?
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20110520/1eec06e0/attachment.html>


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list