I don’t think it is possible to first decide about where and then “whether let will be dropped”. I am fine with adding where. I am absolutely against dropping let. So if first where is added, and only then the argument “but we must not have two ways of doing almost the same thing” kicks in, then you will want to discuss about dropping let, whereas I will start arguing that if one must be dropped, then where is the one. :-)
If I am not alone in this, then it is counterproductive to not up front discuss the actual alternatives “only let“, “only where“, “where and let“. And I don’t think that lambda + let was refuted. It is fine to encourage as a style guide that anonymous functions best do not have local bindings inside. It is a different matter altogether to actually outlaw those two to ever be used together. It seriously hampers the use/combination of functional features. My comment in the earlier discussion that was mainly on this point was this <https://github.com/elm-lang/elm-compiler/issues/621#issuecomment-103183154>. That was written a long time ago, I don’t have the details of the code present in mind anymore, so I can’t tell whether I feel 100% like I did back then on that particular example. But I can suggest this: Make an experiment asking experienced Haskell programmers what they would chose if they had to give up one of where and let from their language. I bet that (being aware giving up let would mean they can’t have local definitions inside a lambda-expression anymore), the majority would chose to give up where. In case you want to start counting: Here is one experienced Haskell programmer who would chose to give up where in that case. (I have been programming Haskell for 20 years next summer.) -- 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.
