[Haskell-cafe] Re: let and fixed point operator

[Jules Bean]

Peter Hercek wrote:
> Jules Bean wrote:
>> I have no idea what you're talking about. It works fine on multiple 
>> lines:
>>
>> f x = g
>>       . transform displacement
>>       . scale factor
>>       $ x
>>
>> is perfectly valid.
> 
> Yes, it is. It is not an issue if you prefer to indent based on previous 
> line
>  instead of "always by the same small amount of spaces". And then problem
>  happens when the amount of spaces is less than 5. E.g. this does not work:
> 
> h x = x
> f x =
>   let g x =
>     h .
>     (+ 5) .
>     (* 2) $
>     x in
>   g x


Indeed, no, but this does:

h x = x
f x =
   let {g x =
     h .
     (+ 5) .
     (* 2) $
     x} in
   g x


In other words, if you don't like the layout conventions of layout 
style, then don't use layout style.


> 
> I do not like to indent based on previous lines since it should be 
> re-indented
>  when the previous lines change (e.g. because of identifier rename).

I can't say that's ever bothered me very much, but I agree it is a minor 
annoyance. It is made fairly painless by a decent editor.

 > So
> I indent
>  based on previous lines only when it adds a LOT to readability. Of course
>  fixed amount indentation by big enough number of spaces would do but 
> then your
>  code gets too wide if more blocks are nested and I like to be withing 
> 110 chars
>  at worst (preferably 80).

I certainly try to keep my lines narrow, (normally under 80) but I've 
never found any trouble doing that. I don't tend to nest very deeply.


> This is probably not a problem for "where" keyword then the next longest 
> from
>  the "let", "where", "do", "of" set is "let" which would mean that 5 
> should be
>  enough, not that bad, but looks much for me. Other option is to leave 
> "let"
>  keyword alone on the line and then indent "g x" by one and the function 
> body
>  by two indentation units from the "let" keyword.
> So from my point of view the point free style is great if it fits on one 
> line
>  well ... otherwise it depends.

I think thinking of 'indentation units' is a bit harmful in layout code, 
for roughly the reasons you describe. I would suggest either use layout 
(and indent at the places that layout suggests you should), or don't use 
layout (use {} like C or Perl).

Jules