On Tuesday 09 February 2010 20:50:33 Saptarshi Guha wrote:
> Hello,
>  I was wondering why recursive functions need to be specified with
> "rec". According to Practical Ocaml, to "inform the compiler that the
> function exists". But when entering the function definition, can't the
> compiler note that the function is being defined so that when it sees the
> function calling itself, it wont say "Unbound value f"?
>
> How is the knowledge of a function being rec taken advantage of (in
> ocaml) as opposed to other languages
> (leaving aside tail call optimization).
>
> Wouldn't one of way of detecting a recursive function would be to see
> if the indeed the function calls itself?

  let f x = x + 1
  let f x = 2 * f x

Is the latter "f" recursive or not?

See my answer to the same question on stack overflow:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/900585/why-are-functions-in-ocaml-f-not-recursive-by-default/1891573

-- 
Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e