Re: [Caml-list] The need to specify 'rec' in a recursive function defintion

[Saptarshi Guha <saptarshi.guha@gmail.com>]

Yes, I see  that f isn't recursive, because it simplifies down to
2*(x+1) but for a reader(at least myself)  it can be bit tricky to
consume. My experience of reading the /definition/ of a function which
includes a call
to itself is that it is recursive. On the stackoverflow post, you
mentioned that the British ML branch forces different names (since
recursion is by default), and though it does pollute the namespace,
personally I find it easier to read.

Regards
Saptarshi


>> Wouldn't one of way of detecting a recursive function would be to see
>> if the indeed the function calls itself?
>
>  let f x = x + 1
>  let f x = 2 * f x
>
> Is the latter "f" recursive or not?
>
> See my answer to the same question on stack overflow:
>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/900585/why-are-functions-in-ocaml-f-not-recursive-by-default/1891573
>
> --
> Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
> http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e
>