On 20.07.13 9:36 PM, Evan Laforge wrote:
However, I'm also not agitating for a non-recursive let, I think that ship has sailed. Besides, if it were added people would start wondering about non-recursive where, and it would introduce an exception to haskell's pretty consistently order-independent declaration style.
For functions, recursive-by-default let makes sense. But for *values*, intended recursion is rather the exception. It is useful for infinite lists and the like. For values of atomic type like Int or Bool, recursive let is a bug.
Of course, if you want to do scope-checking before type-checking, which also makes sense, you cannot make recursiveness type-dependent.
Distinguishing 'let' into 'fun', 'val' and 'val rec' could help here: Non-recursive: val x = e in e' Recursive: fun f x = e in e' val rec x = e(x) in e' -- Andreas Abel <>< Du bist der geliebte Mensch. Theoretical Computer Science, University of Munich Oettingenstr. 67, D-80538 Munich, GERMANY andreas.a...@ifi.lmu.de http://www2.tcs.ifi.lmu.de/~abel/ _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
