4 ms·
I see, yes. Implementation-wise, I don't think this is a problem, the inner function can easily be inlined by the compiler. But language-wise I agree that it is
by krig 12y ago
I see, yes. Implementation-wise, I don't think this is a problem, the inner function can easily be inlined by the compiler. But language-wise I agree that it is somewhat ugly. Some kind of sugar over this kind of construction would be nice.
- sergiosgc 12y agoI was not thinking in terms of compilation result. My problem with this solution is readability. Functions get extracted in the name of reusability. When they are called just once, they do not serve that purpose, and just use space in the programmers mental map of the program. However, I imagine your type of solution could be used in a macro, like jeremyjh suggested in a parallel comment, producing simple code and the expected functionality.
- kybernetikos 12y ago> My problem with this solution is readability. Functions get extracted in the name of reusability In my opinion one of the biggest benefits of functions is the ability to name pieces of code. I've worked with a number of teams where a single line function with a single caller and a descriptive name is preferred to a line that needs a comment to say what it does.