[erlang-questions] DRY principle and the syntax inconsistency in fun vs. vanilla functions
Fri May 20 16:40:14 CEST 2011
On 19 May 2011 18:47, Michael Turner <>wrote:
> "It would, as others have pointed out, also be much harder to jump into a
> module and _know_ what the clause does since the function's name can be
> pages away."
> It would only be harder ("much"??) if you *chose*, in such cases, to use
> the syntax I propose to bring over from multi-clause funs. In the case you
> bring up, it might be wiser not to. And what I propose clearly allows
> everyone to continue with the present syntax. So your argument for
> readability in this case comes down to "somebody might not use this language
> feature wisely." (*facepalm*).
Jumping into the party a bit late, but this caught my eye.
You do realize that sometimes people have to look at the code written by
others, right? Whether I choose to use this new syntax or not (and for the
record I hate it), it will inevitably still impact me if others choose to
"Perhaps people don't believe this, but throughout all of the discussions of
entering China our focus has really been what's best for the Chinese people.
It's not been about our revenue or profit or whatnot."
--Sergey Brin, demonstrating the emptiness of the "don't be evil" mantra.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions