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 QAA11307; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:05:08 +0200 (MET DST) 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 QAA11376 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:05:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from fort-point-station.mit.edu (FORT-POINT-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.7.7.76]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h3OE56H28623 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:05:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from grand-central-station.mit.edu (GRAND-CENTRAL-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.82]) by fort-point-station.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h3OE54JN003120; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 10:05:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (MELBOURNE-CITY-STREET.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.86]) by grand-central-station.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h3OE54ii002767; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 10:05:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mit.edu (MFLIN.MIT.EDU [18.194.0.116]) ) by melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h3OE52U8019152; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 10:05:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 10:05:02 -0400 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] let rec when not recursive Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: caml-list@inria.fr To: Henri DF From: Mike Lin In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-Spam: no; 0.00; mikelin:01 caml-list:01 henridf:01 lcavsun:01 sched:01 invokes:01 -mike:01 rec:01 wrote:03 recursive:03 argument:03 let:04 epfl:05 body:93 definition:06 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Thursday, April 24, 2003, at 09:58 AM, henridf@lcavsun1.epfl.ch wrote: > In order to be able to refer to the function within the body (ie, pass > 'clock_tick' as argument to sched#sched_in), the only think i could > think > of was to make it recursive, even though it isn't (because the > sched#sched_in call returns immediately). If the definition of the function refers to itself then it is recursive. It doesn't matter if it actually invokes itself or not. So, no, this is not a perversion of anything. -Mike ------------------- 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