Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
WAS Re: [Caml-list] Re: The need to specify 'rec' in a recursive function defintion
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Grant Rettke <grettke@a...>
Subject: Re: WAS Re: [Caml-list] Re: The need to specify 'rec' in a recursive function defintion
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 February 2010 16:47:03 Grant Rettke wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Ashish Agarwal <agarwal1975@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> > let rec
>>
>> Do OCaml'er look at let rec more as being a message to the programmer,
>> rather than the compiler, that the way I want to define this function
>> is recursively so even if 'f' was previously bound you know which one
>> I mean?
>
> I see it as resolving an ambiguity for both the programmer and compiler. There
> are alternatives as others have mentioned but none seem particularly good or
> bad to me. Moreover, the burden of "rec" is tiny so I don't think it is worth
> discussing in such detail.

It wasn't about the "burden" of having to type 4 extra characters;
rather I was trying to understand the philosophy behind the langguage.