On Saturday, December 29, 2012 07:01:42 bearophile wrote: > Jonathan M Davis: > > I really think that this is a non-issue. > > It's not a necessary feature, but it helps make the code more > readable, shorter, keeping it safe. I write several recursive > functions, and I'd like a way to refer to the function inside the > function without using its real name, something like self(), or > even __function(). Private default arguments help further the use > of recursion.
AFAIK, not even functional languages where recursion is what you always do have anything like what you're suggesting. I really don't see it as any real cost to do recursion use the function's name. So, feel free to bring it up as a feature that you'd like, but I really think that it's trying to solve something that really isn't a problem in the first place. And this is coming from someone who used to program in haskell quite a bit. - Jonathan M Davis
