From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32772BC37 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:32:42 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtgAAEffckvUnwdkkGdsb2JhbACDCpdxFQEBAQEHCwwHEwQfrlePUIEvgktbBA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,447,1262559600"; d="scan'208";a="52459351" Received: from relay.pcl-ipout02.plus.net ([212.159.7.100]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 11 Feb 2010 01:32:41 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EABvfcktUXebq/2dsb2JhbACDCpdxdK5Vj1CBL4JLWwQ Received: from relay07.plus.net ([84.93.230.234]) by relay.pcl-ipout02.plus.net with ESMTP; 11 Feb 2010 00:32:41 +0000 Received: from [87.112.77.220] (helo=leper.local) by relay07.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1NfMz3-0005E1-5w for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:32:41 +0000 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: The need to specify 'rec' in a recursive function defintion Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:48:20 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <1e7471d51002091250of7a686fq537a03c9401c868f@mail.gmail.com> <9d3ec8301002101425k356b92e0p6ca2690d8cd6399d@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9d3ec8301002101425k356b92e0p6ca2690d8cd6399d@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201002110148.20223.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Plusnet-Relay: 3ccddf9c66cc6fa6eddd8726eb98e512 X-Spam: no; 0.00; recursive:01 defintion:01 frog:98 wrote:01 rec:01 rec:01 caml-list:01 specify:06 argue:08 function:08 function:08 useful:09 useful:09 ltd:87 type:14 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. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e