Browse thread
WAS Re: [Caml-list] Re: The need to specify 'rec' in a recursive function defintion
-
Grant Rettke
-
Jon Harrop
- Andrej Bauer
- Grant Rettke
-
Jon Harrop
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2010-05-29 (21:27) |
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.