On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Jon Harrop j...@ffconsultancy.com wrote:
On Tuesday 16 February 2010 16:47:03 Grant Rettke wrote:
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Ashish Agarwal agarwal1...@gmail.com
wrote:
let rec
Do OCaml'er look at let rec more as being a message to the programmer,
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Andrej Bauer andrej.ba...@andrej.com wrote:
Moreover, the burden of rec is tiny so I don't think it is worth
discussing in such detail.
Ah, but you are forgetting Wadler's Law.
You mean this:
Wadler's Law:
The emotional intensity of debate on a
Moreover, the burden of rec is tiny so I don't think it is worth
discussing in such detail.
Ah, but you are forgetting Wadler's Law.
___
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
Archives:
It sure does, tho not with fun but only with var definitions.
^^^
val
Stefan blush!
___
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
It may be worth recalling the OCaml koans at
http://eigenclass.org/hiki/fp-ocaml-koans. The first one is:
let rec
One day, a disciple of another sect came to Xavier Leroy and said mockingly:
The OCaml compiler seems very limited: why do you have to indicate when a
function is recursive, cannot
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Ashish Agarwal agarwal1...@gmail.com wrote:
let rec
Do OCaml'er look at let rec more as being a message to the programmer,
rather than the compiler, that the way I want to define this function
is recursively so even if 'f' was previously bound you know which one
On Tuesday 16 February 2010 16:47:03 Grant Rettke wrote:
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Ashish Agarwal agarwal1...@gmail.com
wrote:
let rec
Do OCaml'er look at let rec more as being a message to the programmer,
rather than the compiler, that the way I want to define this function
is
Wouldn't one of way of detecting a recursive function would be to see
if the indeed the function calls itself?
That's what Haskell does, yes.
Let's make things clear here: the rec *really* is a feature;
Nobody said otherwise. Eliminating the rec is also a feature.
Those two features are
On Monday 15 February 2010 15:46:58 Stefan Monnier wrote:
Till Varoquaux had written:
Let's make things clear here: the rec *really* is a feature;
Nobody said otherwise. Eliminating the rec is also a feature.
Those two features are mostly incompatible, and many reasonable people
disagree
Till Varoquaux had written:
Let's make things clear here: the rec *really* is a feature;
Nobody said otherwise. Eliminating the rec is also a feature.
Those two features are mostly incompatible, and many reasonable people
disagree on which one of the two is more important.
Stefan who
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 22:25:44 Till Varoquaux wrote:
Some (including me) would even argue that it is sad that type
definitions don't use rec.
Agreed. Less useful than rec on function definitions but that would still be
useful sometimes.
--
Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
Fortunately OCaml is (much more) than simply-typed lambda
calculus. Almost any feature of OCaml -- recursive data types,
recursive types, reference cells, mutable records, exceptions,
objects, recursive modules and polymorphic variants -- can be used to
express the fixpoint combinator. Sometimes
12 matches
Mail list logo
