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

[Guillaume Yziquel <guillaume.yziquel@citycable.ch>]

Saptarshi Guha a écrit :
> Hello,
>  I was wondering why recursive functions need to be specified with
> "rec". According to Practical Ocaml, to "inform the compiler that the function
> exists". But when entering the function definition, can't the compiler note that
> the function is being defined so that when it sees the function calling itself,
> it wont say "Unbound value f"?

Essentially, the fact that "rec" means anything is mostly due to the 
fact that you want to be able to redefine stuff.

> let f = fun x -> x + 1
> 
> let f x = f (f x)

is valid in ocaml, and you're function f is the function that adds 2.

whereas

> let rec f x = f (f x)

has a completely different meaning.

If you avoided the use of rec, saying "if unbound, assume rec", then the 
line

let f x = f (f x)

has two entirely different meaning, depending on whether f is defined 
before or not.

That would be quite a chaotic feature.

> Wouldn't one of way of detecting a recursive function would be to see
> if the indeed the function calls itself?

No. Because you never know if you intended to call the function 
recursively, or if you intended to call an homonymous function you 
defined before.

All the best,

-- 
      Guillaume Yziquel
http://yziquel.homelinux.org/