I typically use either threading or composition...
(require threading)
(define (foo x)
(~> x
f g h bar))
or
(define (foo x)
((compose bar h g f) x)
A.
On Sunday, 12 August 2018 00:11:19 UTC+10, Robert Heffernan wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I am new to Racket and only slightly less new to scheme & scheme-like
> languages.
>
> I have noticed myself often doing something like the following:
>
> (define (foo x)
> (let* ([y (f x)]
> [z (g y)]
> [p (h z)])
> (bar p)))
>
> Which could, of course, be written as
>
> (define (foo x)
> (bar (h (g (f x)))))
>
> Here's an example from something I was just working on:
>
> (define (get-data input)
> (let* ([url-string (construct-url input)]
> [url (string->url url-string)]
> [port (get-pure-port url)])
> (read-json port)))
>
> which, again, could be written as:
> (define (get-data input)
> (read-json (get-pure-port (string->url (construct-url input)))))
>
> My question is: is the way I'm writing things considered to be bad
> style? It feels like a hangover from more imperative-style programming
> & the inclination to do one thing "per line". On the other hand, it
> often helps readability.
>
> It might be, of course, that both versions amount to the same thing
> after the interpreter has been at them.
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Bob Heffernan
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
