From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <grettke@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E979BBAF
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:47:05 +0100 (CET)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0BAB9aekvRVdrUkGdsb2JhbACTT4dDCBUBAQEBCQkMBxMDILAZhFqIcgEBAwWEVgSDFIhy
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,485,1262559600"; 
   d="scan'208";a="44910913"
Received: from mail-bw0-f212.google.com ([209.85.218.212])
  by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 16 Feb 2010 17:47:04 +0100
Received: by bwz4 with SMTP id 4so4902175bwz.22
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 08:47:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
        bh=3R7kVntdn6SknIZqEoxkS7X7tFhayOkUJN71hVN+RM0=;
        b=fIjCYaPDHXdoYQItpd3TIUF7RTrhdvoTSbRBArQcbH0lyTW9YvkC8XXuKt0aZ7fVur
         qbEvx1y+07RuvNsJMpRtSiMEu0BFVz33Jtuyc/eQ994JEG+2x94euoxfYcQ9wUfGyFBG
         4ApCfAzPrRFemkOyUwCA9nJjDCXGXX7ShUukI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject
         :from:to:cc:content-type;
        b=YPGOrf8lVSGQy2PLbwYFB8ZJr2S/jTyKqJz5yQfISQhyDo0r/OZhw/1oh+vdYEeL0T
         uDc2AmDTMZMHjnxiUgEwhIxEak+xL8QqwICg1YPwSPg+ZgPW6VtXGjEUQI+oTQl8j0/x
         SCPGQfNx9V1V84HXWFMgzYX4Lt/5nq4UBX4Bo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: grettke@gmail.com
Received: by 10.204.131.208 with SMTP id y16mr4363387bks.137.1266338823994; 
	Tue, 16 Feb 2010 08:47:03 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:47:03 -0600
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 12e536eb715df174
Message-ID: <756daca51002160847k1a416f01p36cc192d00e25697@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: WAS Re: [Caml-list] Re: The need to specify 'rec' in a recursive 
	function defintion
From: Grant Rettke <grettke@acm.org>
To: Ashish Agarwal <agarwal1975@gmail.com>
Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>, caml-list@inria.fr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam: no; 0.00; recursive:01 defintion:01 compiler:01 mutation:01 compiler:01 1975:98 wrote:01 rec:01 rec:01 recursively:01 caml-list:01 define:02 let:03 let:03 tue:06 

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Ashish Agarwal <agarwal1975@gmail.com> wrote:
> let rec

Do OCaml'er look at let rec more as being a message to the programmer,
rather than the compiler, that the way I want to define this function
is recursively so even if 'f' was previously bound you know which one
I mean?

Considering the language allows mutation, I feel like it is more for
humans than the compiler, but of course, the compiler must be told,
too.