I agree that the style-guide import should go separate from its development or modifications.
I believe that the reason why Santi thought there is a mistake in the Point-free section is that the example isn't actually point-free, because all the variants reference all the variables explictly. So I'd suggest to improve it for example like this: Prefer the so-called [point-free]( http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Pointfree) style when declaring functions, if applicable: -- bad let a x = f (g (h x)) -- good let a = f . g . h Also use function composition in a similar manner to avoid extra parentheses: -- ... the original example ... On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Klaus Aehlig <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 03:48:43PM +0100, Santi Raffa wrote: > > Here's an interdiff for an error in the original document I didn't > > catch until now. > > > > diff --git a/doc/dev-codestyle.rst b/doc/dev-codestyle.rst > > index 4a87a27..5c9f8b6 100644 > > --- a/doc/dev-codestyle.rst > > +++ b/doc/dev-codestyle.rst > > @@ -469,11 +469,11 @@ Parentheses, point free style > > Prefer the so-called point-free style to extra parentheses:: > > > > -- bad > > - let a = f ( g ( h x) ) > > + let a x = f ( g ( h x) ) > > -- better > > - let b = f $ g $ h x > > + let b x = f $ g $ h x > > -- best > > - let c = f . g . h $ x > > + let c = f . g . h > > NACK > > The example made sense, and demonstrated how to write down > the expression > > f ( g ( h x ) ) > > assuming f, g, h, and x are variables available in the context. > > Personally, I'm not sure wheter > > f . g . h $ x > > or > > f . g $ h x > > is preferable, but that's a different question. In either case, > the import of the style guide should be separate from any > disussions on how to develop the style further. > > Klaus > > -- > Klaus Aehlig > Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstr. 12, 80331 Muenchen > Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891 > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg > Geschaeftsfuehrer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth Flores >
