From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id PAA06174; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:27:08 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA16574 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:27:07 +0100 (MET) Received: from mailhost.trusted-logic.fr (mailhost.trusted-logic.fr [194.250.150.5]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id hAJER6120736 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:27:06 +0100 (MET) Received: from ouessant.trusted-logic.fr (ouessant.trusted-logic.fr [192.168.1.201]) by mailhost.trusted-logic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D36B1AA for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:27:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from trusted-logic.fr ([192.168.1.76]) by ouessant.trusted-logic.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA10055 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:27:06 +0100 Message-ID: <3FBB7DA2.7030208@trusted-logic.fr> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:26:42 +0100 From: Samuel Lacas Organization: Trusted-Logic S.A. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031013 Thunderbird/0.3 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Caml Mailing List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] GC and file descriptors References: <1069092899.17437.58.camel@pelican> <20031118120517.GA881@exomi.com> <1069168782.18363.90.camel@pelican> <20031118200209.GA549@exomi.com> <1069244753.23700.17.camel@pelican> <20031119135520.GB886@exomi.com> In-Reply-To: <20031119135520.GB886@exomi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; samuel:01 lacas:01 samuel:01 lacas:01 caml-list:01 1100,:01 ocaml:01 descriptors:01 rec:01 nov:01 constructs:02 explicit:03 wrote:03 wrote:03 let:04 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Ville-Pertti Keinonen wrote: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:25:53PM +1100, skaller wrote: [snip] > I wouldn't call it conventional lexical scoping considering that the > following is an error: > > x = 1 > def f(): > x += 1 > return x > > I very much prefer having explicit let (and let rec) constructs like in > OCaml. Yes, but the following works: x = 1 def f(): global x # needed to reference x x += 1 return x Thus, everything is just in the "conventional". Different languages seems to have different conventions. sL ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners