Re: [Caml-list] Strange behavior of mutualy recursive definitions

[rixed@happyleptic.org]

Thank you for the explanation but I fear they are not enough for me to
understand.  Specifically, I do not understand why to compile "let rec
toto = inc titi and titi = dec toto" this is not enough to know the
address of titi and toto functions. I don't see what's the difference
from let rec toto = titi inc ..." in this regard.

> The second version only defines toto as a function that calls titi. No
> need to have titi evaluated to be able to evalue toto. You only need to
> know where it is declared. That's the main difference.

But in the first version, toto is a function that calls inc with, as
first parameter, the address of titi. I don't see why it's more complex.

And suppose I would understand this, I'd still have to figure out why
merely adding the mute variable x suddenly turns the definitions valid.