# Let vs. Where

### From HaskellWiki

Haskell programmers often wonder whether to use or .
is an expression, that is, it can be written wherever expressions are allowed. In contrast, is bound to a surrounding syntactic construct, like the pattern matching line of a function definition.

and later you decide to put this into the monad.
will not work, because refers to the pattern matching ,
where no is in scope.
In contrast, if you had started with , then you wouldn't have trouble.
In expression style, you might use an explicit :
These alternatives are arguably less readable and hide the structure of the function more than simply using .
The auxiliary definition can either be a top-level binding, or included in f using or .
you will notice that the second one runs considerably slower than the first. You may wonder why simply adding an explicit argument to (known as eta expansion) degrades performance so dramatically.
You might see the reason better if you rewrote this code using .
In the second case, is redefined for every argument . The compiler cannot know whether you intended this -- while it increases time complexity it may reduce space complexity. Thus it will not float the definition out from under the binding of x.

In contrast, in the first function, can be moved to the top level by the compiler. The clause hid this structure
and made the application to look like a plain eta expansion, which it is not.

let

where

This seems to be only a matter of taste in the sense of "Declaration vs. expression style", however there is more to it.

It is important to know thatlet ... in ...

where

## Contents |

## 1 Advantages of let

Suppose you have the function

f :: s -> (a,s) f x = y where y = ... x ...

Control.Monad.State

However, transforming to

f :: State s a f = State $ \x -> y where y = ... x ...

where

f =

x

let

f :: s -> (a,s) f x = let y = ... x ... in y

This is easily transformed to:

f :: State s a f = State $ \x -> let y = ... x ... in y

## 2 Advantages of where

Because "where" blocks are bound to a syntactic construct, they can be used to share bindings between parts of a function that are not syntactically expressions. For example:

f x | cond1 x = a | cond2 x = g a | otherwise = f (h x a) where a = w x

case

f x = let a = w x in case () of _ | cond1 x -> a | cond2 x -> g a | otherwise -> f (h x a)

or a functional equivalent:

f x = let a = w x in select (f (h x a)) [(cond1 x, a), (cond2 x, g a)]

or a series of if-then-else expressions:

f x = let a = w x in if cond1 x then a else if cond2 x then g a else f (h x a)

where

## 3 Lambda Lifting

One other approach to consider is that let or where can often be implemented using lambda lifting and let floating, incurring at least the cost of introducing a new name. The above example:

f x | cond1 x = a | cond2 x = g a | otherwise = f (h x a) where a = w x

could be implemented as:

f x = f' (w x) x f' a x | cond1 x = a | cond2 x = g a | otherwise = f (h x a)

let

where

## 4 Problems with where

If you run both

fib = (map fib' [0 ..] !!) where fib' 0 = 0 fib' 1 = 1 fib' n = fib (n - 1) + fib (n - 2)

and

fib x = map fib' [0 ..] !! x where fib' 0 = 0 fib' 1 = 1 fib' n = fib (n - 1) + fib (n - 2)

fib

let

Compare

fib = let fib' 0 = 0 fib' 1 = 1 fib' n = fib (n - 1) + fib (n - 2) in (map fib' [0 ..] !!)

and

fib x = let fib' 0 = 0 fib' 1 = 1 fib' n = fib (n - 1) + fib (n - 2) in map fib' [0 ..] !! x

fib'

x

In contrast, in the first function,

fib'

where

x

- Haskell-Cafe on Eta-expansion destroys memoization?