Yes, I see that f isn't recursive, because it simplifies down to
2*(x+1) but for a reader(at least myself) it can be bit tricky to
consume. My experience of reading the /definition/ of a function which
includes a call
to itself is that it is recursive. On the stackoverflow post, you
mentioned tha
>
> let f arg = expr
>
> is just a short-hand notation for
>
> let f = (fun arg -> expr)
>
> or, in other words, the anonymous function constructor (fun arg -> expr)
> is the basic building block to which the "let" construction is broken
> down. The anonymous function has a direct counterpart in th
Thanks, very helpful.
>> let f = fun x -> x + 1 (1)
>>
>> let f x = f (f x) (2)
This works in ocaml because, it replaces f (in (2) ) from that of (1).
Which is why i need f previously defined.
Correct me if i'm wrong.
>
>> Wouldn't one of way of detecting a recursive function would be to see
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 c
