From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40351BBAF for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:47:21 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AosDAAf7eEtQW+UMgWdsb2JhbACbHBUBARYkI70ghFsEgxSHYg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,478,1262559600"; d="scan'208";a="44681153" Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 15 Feb 2010 16:47:20 +0100 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nh3AO-0003Sf-0c for caml-list@inria.fr; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:47:20 +0100 Received: from 69-165-161-195.dsl.teksavvy.com ([69.165.161.195]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:47:20 +0100 Received: from monnier by 69-165-161-195.dsl.teksavvy.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:47:20 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: caml-list@inria.fr From: Stefan Monnier Subject: Re: The need to specify 'rec' in a recursive function defintion Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:46:58 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1e7471d51002091250of7a686fq537a03c9401c868f@mail.gmail.com> <9d3ec8301002101425k356b92e0p6ca2690d8cd6399d@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 69-165-161-195.dsl.teksavvy.com User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:dYBrfFWhCnc0VRDFKvJIy+kB2rs= Sender: news X-Spam: no; 0.00; recursive:01 defintion:01 recursive:01 haskell:01 extensively:01 sml:01 rec:01 rec:01 incompatible:01 specify:06 indeed:07 disagree:08 function:08 function:08 feature:09 >>> Wouldn't one of way of detecting a recursive function would be to see >>> if the indeed the function calls itself? >> That's what Haskell does, yes. > Let's make things clear here: the "rec" *really* is a feature; Nobody said otherwise. Eliminating the "rec" is also a feature. Those two features are mostly incompatible, and many reasonable people disagree on which one of the two is more important. Stefan "who extensively used that feature in SML, but happens to prefer the other feature nevertheless"