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:


  val x = e
  in  e'


  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


Haskell-Cafe mailing list

Reply via email to