From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAA8D7EE51 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 02:40:46 +0200 (CEST) Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of oliver@first.in-berlin.de) identity=pra; client-ip=192.109.42.8; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="oliver@first.in-berlin.de"; x-sender="oliver@first.in-berlin.de"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of oliver@first.in-berlin.de) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=192.109.42.8; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="oliver@first.in-berlin.de"; x-sender="oliver@first.in-berlin.de"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@einhorn.in-berlin.de) identity=helo; client-ip=192.109.42.8; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="oliver@first.in-berlin.de"; x-sender="postmaster@einhorn.in-berlin.de"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvIBAMEHoFHAbSoIlGdsb2JhbABahnO5VYUngQgWDgEBAQEJCwkJFAQkgiMBAQUjVhALCQ8CAgUhAgIPBRgxE4gNBKgEkVsWgRCNdweCQYETA48HiDOUUg X-IPAS-Result: AvIBAMEHoFHAbSoIlGdsb2JhbABahnO5VYUngQgWDgEBAQEJCwkJFAQkgiMBAQUjVhALCQ8CAgUhAgIPBRgxE4gNBKgEkVsWgRCNdweCQYETA48HiDOUUg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,738,1363129200"; d="scan'208";a="18915011" Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 25 May 2013 02:40:46 +0200 X-Envelope-From: oliver@first.in-berlin.de Received: from first (e178014212.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.14.212]) (authenticated bits=0) by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.13.6/8.13.6/Debian-1) with ESMTP id r4P0ejTc020567 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 25 May 2013 02:40:45 +0200 Received: by first (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 77F02154066B; Sat, 25 May 2013 02:40:44 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 02:40:45 +0200 From: oliver To: Siraaj Khandkar Cc: Arnaud Spiwack , OCaML Mailing List Message-ID: <20130525004045.GH1923@siouxsie> References: <20130523235355.GI6510@siouxsie> <20130524233015.GE1923@siouxsie> <37A1A2D3-5993-4675-9937-ED3965793D1D@khandkar.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <37A1A2D3-5993-4675-9937-ED3965793D1D@khandkar.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang_at_IN-Berlin_e.V. on 192.109.42.8 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml's variables On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 07:53:33PM -0400, Siraaj Khandkar wrote: > > On May 24, 2013, at 7:30 PM, oliver wrote: > > > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:01:39AM +0200, Arnaud Spiwack wrote: > >> Why were you astounded? This is a perfectly legitimate/correct use of the > >> word "variable". > > [...] > > > > > > Do you think so? > > > > I have thought about making the sentence better, but did not found > > a better sentence in short time. > > > > But name-value-binding is the term that is used in functional languages. > > I wonder why the term "variable" pops up there. > > And even I understood the sentence, I'm not sure if this might create confusion > > to some readers, because the term "variable" is normally not used for functional languages. > > > > People new to FP will be said, there are no "variables", and then they maybe > > will be irritated, if they find that term in a reference-manual. > > > > Do you see what I mean? > > If you think of functions as equations, non-constant values are variables. [...] Where do the non-constant values come from? I don't see there non-constant values. Even a referemce, where the value is mutable, is represented as a name-binding to the reference (container). But in the chapter on page 136 it's about recursive values. That does not mean the values are mutable. So I wonder, why the term variables might be ok there. Why is on the one hand emphasized, that there are name-value bindings, on the other hands variables are the right term? Or am I too picky? Or has my mind be infected at the time when I looked at Haskell and it's pureness? Ciao, Oliver