On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons <[email protected]> wrote: > List, > > I was wondering if there was any reason not to make "let rec" the default / > sole option, meaning cases where you clearly don't want a "let rec" instead > of "let" (only in functions, not cyclic data). > > Diego Olivier
The default "no-rec" allows for name recycling -- using the same name for an incrementally transformed value, i.e. to bind the intermediate results. Name recycling minimizes the cognitive burden: there are less names to remember in a scope, and differences in names are justified by differences in purpose of the values. Are there reasons to consider name recycling a bad style? Happy New Year, Łukasz -- Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
