Functions defined in let bindings

[stil4m]

let are commonly used to hold intermediate values that are used (multiple times) in other expressions in the let binding.

There is no reason to have functions in there, extracting these to top-levels would be a better choice. Encapsulation can be achieved by not exposing that extracted function or by creating a whole new module.

[felixLam]

I don't agree that this is an absolute. We have a few instances where there is a generic top level function and some othe functions calls this multiple times with only one differing argument. We then create a local alias that encapsulates the call along with the common arguments used in that function.

[felixLam]

But I can always switch that check off.

[stil4m]

I think there should be a distinction between curried function that become new functions and actually defining new functions.
In the following example I believe you do not want bar but foo is ok even though they are semantically equivalent.

foo x = 
   let 
     listModifier = List.map ((+) 1)
   in
     listModifier x

bar x = 
    let 
       incrementList y = List.map ((+) 1) y
    in
       incrementList x

[felixLam]

I believe both are OK as that might make sense for code readability or if the function "alias" is used more than once.

…

Am 19. Mäz. 2017 um 15:01 schrieb Mats Stijlaart ***@***.***>: I think there should be a distinction between curried function that become new functions and actually defining new functions. In the following example I believe you do not want bar but foo is ok even though they are semantically equivalent. foo x = let listModifier = List.map ((+) 1) in listModifier x bar x = let incrementList y = List.map ((+) 1) y in incrementList x — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[stil4m]

This check will be disabled by default for now.