On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Matt Rice <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Matt Rice <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> With this syntax, foo can refer to bar. >>> >>> I know at the top you say mutually recursive, but >>> wrt the last line, foo and bar can both refer to each other.. >> >> Indeed. So in particular, foo can refer to bar. :) What I was trying >> to say is that explicitly-marked mutually recursive definitions are >> when OCaml lets you have forward references. >> >> If you can have a forward reference any old time, it doesn't mean you >> don't have mutually recursive types, it means you have them without >> even saying so. > > I'd have to go look at the original bitc compiler and try again, but > IIRC it had forward references but I was never able to get mutually > recursive types out of it without infinite source code :)
Hmm. Well I've never tried the old bitc. I suppose it could forbid mutually recursive types, but I don't see why you'd want to do that, if you have regular recursive types. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
