English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
[Caml-list] syntax foo
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2002-02-06 (20:52)
From: Alexander V. Voinov <avv@q...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] syntax foo
Hi All,

Markus Mottl wrote:
> > let*-form, ie. a sequence of bindings, each of which is in the scope of the

I also don't understand (maybe I've read this long ago and forgot the
underlying reasoning) why the burden on distinguishing between 'let' and
'let rec' is laid on the programmer? Can't a parser figure out when a
function is recursive and when not? I believed that in a functional
language all functions are recursive by default.

Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr