@Janis, I suppose the `where` version of that formation would have to be:
f tree = work
where a = ...
work = case tree of
Leaf x -> -- using a and b
where b = ...
Node s t -> -- using a c
where c = ...
On Sunday, 1 January 2017 12:21:47 UTC-8, Janis Voigtländer wrote:
>
> Janis, the following compiles for me: …
>
> Right, where does not work for expressions, but for right-hand sides, of
> which pattern match branches are an instance.
>
> The next question would be, still under the assumption that a choice has
> to be made between where and let because both won’t be made available at
> the same time, how well “where-only” would work if in addition one wants
> to have a local binding that spans all pattern match branches, i.e.,
> something one would currently write in Elm like so:
>
> f tree =
> let
> a = ... something ...
> in
> case tree of
> Leaf x -> let b = ... in ... using a and b ...
> Node s t -> let c = ... in ... using a and c ...
>
>
>
--
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.
