I think the strongest argument is that, if you really want where
expressions, you can just do this:
Translate
some_expresssion_with_p1_to_pk
where
p1 = e1
...
pk = ek
into
let
ret = some_expresssion_with_p1_to_pk
p1 = e1
...
pk = ek
in
ret
You get the advantage of a where expression: the primary thing you're
talking about comes first. It works because all Let blocks in Elm are
mutually-recursive, so the ordering doesn't matter. But, it's just a
pattern with existing syntax, instead of new sugar, which is more inline
with the Elm philosophy.
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Lourens Rolograaf <rologr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Please no. Not every Haskell feature should have a place in elm,
> especially if there is already a construct that works (and overlaps 100%?)
> Please do not make elm2016, elm2017 or coffeeElm, with all kinds of
> syntactic sugar because some user from another language still thinks this
> way.
>
> Op vrijdag 30 december 2016 18:10:52 UTC+1 schreef Will White:
>>
>> Continued from https://github.com/elm-lang/elm-compiler/issues/621.
>>
> --
> 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 elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
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 elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
