On Jul 22, 2013, at 12:27 PM, Andreas Abel <andreas.a...@ifi.lmu.de> wrote:

> 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.

It seems hard to distinguish between them. What about values that contain 
functions, like data T = T Int (Int -> Int)? What about polymorphic values, 
that could be functions and could be not?
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Reply via email to