Hi David, > A let clause would work fine here: > > someFunction ls a b c = let listLen = length ls > someAuxFunction x y = ... listLen ... > someOtherFunction x y = ... listLen ... > in > ... listLen ... > > it's just that you don't want to mix let and where clauses, because then > things get confusing. Even if it worked with both, noone would know the > binding rules.
Possibly in that case, but there are cases where I believe they are not the same. For example: gg n = ([1..,10^6*n], [1..10^6*n]) exp = (fst $ gg 1000, snd $ gg 1000) this could be captured nicely in a where clause: exp = (fst blah, snd blah) where blah = gg 1000 But a let would have to be placed in both elements of the tuple - and therefore being evaluated twice (unless the implementation is smart enough to work out they can be shared?): exp = (let blah = g 1000 in fst blah, let blah = g 1000 in snd blah) Kind regards, Chris. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
