On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Andrej Bauer wrote:
>>Moreover, the burden of "rec" is tiny so I don't think it is worth
>>discussing in such detail.
>
> Ah, but you are forgetting Wadler's Law.
You mean this:
" Wadler's Law:
The emotional intensity of debate on a language feature
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Jon Harrop wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 February 2010 16:47:03 Grant Rettke wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Ashish Agarwal
> wrote:
>> > let rec
>>
>> Do OCaml'er look at let rec more as being a message to the programmer,
>> rather than the compiler, that th
>Moreover, the burden of "rec" is tiny so I don't think it is worth
>discussing in such detail.
Ah, but you are forgetting Wadler's Law.
___
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
Archiv
On Tuesday 16 February 2010 16:47:03 Grant Rettke wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Ashish Agarwal
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 eve
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Ashish Agarwal 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