@djspiewak [citation needed]
-
-
Replying to @puffnfresh
@puffnfresh Your face is harder to read. Also it isn’t named. Coincidence?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @djspiewak
@djspiewak@puffnfresh you wouldn't think names were useful if you saw the demented nomenclature I used.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @bitemyapp
@bitemyapp@puffnfresh val a = xs map (1 +) val b = a filter { _ < 10 } val c = a reduceOption { _ + _ } val d = c getOrElse 0 d#fail2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @djspiewak
@djspiewak@bitemyapp Warning: Defined but not used: `b'1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @puffnfresh
@puffnfresh@bitemyapp :-) So, naming allows you to group and label chains of computation. Also makes it easier to refactor later.1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @djspiewak
@djspiewak@bitemyapp now try it without names, will you hit the "defined but not used" problem?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @puffnfresh
@puffnfresh@bitemyapp :-) My example was clearly facetious. I was pointing out how *not* to break things up by name.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @djspiewak
@djspiewak@puffnfresh Not sure I support that generalization. I like the readability of, eg val result = xs map fn filter pred mkString ","2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @propensive
@propensive@puffnfresh The way I like to differentiate is, “If it’s hard to come up with a name, maybe it doesn’t need one.”3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
@djspiewak @puffnfresh That's perfectly fair!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.