3 ms·

Yup, like I said, not as ergonomic as Clojure. In clojure, it is: user> (defn bar [x] (+ x 1)) If you want it inside a namespace named foo, then it is:

Yup, like I said, not as ergonomic as Clojure. In clojure, it is: user> (defn bar [x] (+ x 1)) If you want it inside a namespace named foo, then it is: user> (in-ns 'foo) foo> (defn bar [x] (+ x 1))

jeremyjh 5y ago
I agree Clojure has a better REPL experience than Elixir. But in Elixir REPL for a quick and dirty function you'd probably just do >bar = fn x -> x + 1 end The most unfortunate thing though is then you have to have a different calling convention. Its the greatest flaw in Elixir by far but they didn't have a reasonable alternative given the constraints of Erlang. Still for defining a named function in the REPL its the same in Haskell and most other languages I believe that you can't define a new named function or add a function to a module in the REPL, though at least in Haskell the calling convention for a variable bound to a lambda is the same as for a named top-level function. LISPs have always had a different notion of how the REPL integrates into the development experience of a running program, and I don't think its really been replicated elsewhere.
- AlchemistCamp 5y ago
  Or maybe go with the shorter anonymous function syntax: bar = &(&1 + 1)
  - divs1210 5y ago
    If we're playing code golf, then in Clojure it is: (def bar #(+ % 1)) or even (def bar inc) but the difference is that in Clojure, all of these are `IFn`s, and have the same calling syntax, unlike Elixir.
    - AlchemistCamp 5y ago
      You may be "playing code golf", but I generally just use the capture syntax where the compactness aids readability. For example, a function that takes two arguments and returns their product could be written as fn x, y -> x * y end or &(&1 * &2) When used inside a map or reduce or when the function is a direct mathematical operation on its arguments, it can be a bit quicker to parse the capture syntax than the fn ... end syntax.

Yup, like I said, not as ergonomic as Clojure. In clojure, it is: user> (defn bar [x] (+ x 1)) If you want it inside a namespace named foo, then it is: user> (in-ns 'foo) foo> (defn bar [x] (+ x 1))

jeremyjh 5y ago

I agree Clojure has a better REPL experience than Elixir. But in Elixir REPL for a quick and dirty function you'd probably just do >bar = fn x -> x + 1 end The most unfortunate thing though is then you have to have a different calling convention. Its the greatest flaw in Elixir by far but they didn't have a reasonable alternative given the constraints of Erlang. Still for defining a named function in the REPL its the same in Haskell and most other languages I believe that you can't define a new named function or add a function to a module in the REPL, though at least in Haskell the calling convention for a variable bound to a lambda is the same as for a named top-level function. LISPs have always had a different notion of how the REPL integrates into the development experience of a running program, and I don't think its really been replicated elsewhere.

AlchemistCamp 5y ago
Or maybe go with the shorter anonymous function syntax: bar = &(&1 + 1)
- divs1210 5y ago
  If we're playing code golf, then in Clojure it is: (def bar #(+ % 1)) or even (def bar inc) but the difference is that in Clojure, all of these are `IFn`s, and have the same calling syntax, unlike Elixir.
  - AlchemistCamp 5y ago
    You may be "playing code golf", but I generally just use the capture syntax where the compactness aids readability. For example, a function that takes two arguments and returns their product could be written as fn x, y -> x * y end or &(&1 * &2) When used inside a map or reduce or when the function is a direct mathematical operation on its arguments, it can be a bit quicker to parse the capture syntax than the fn ... end syntax.