On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Jon Harrop j...@ffconsultancy.com wrote:
On Tuesday 16 February 2010 16:47:03 Grant Rettke wrote:
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Ashish Agarwal agarwal1...@gmail.com
wrote:
let rec
Do OCaml'er look at let rec more as being a message to the programmer,
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Andrej Bauer andrej.ba...@andrej.com 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
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
Archives:
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Ashish Agarwal agarwal1...@gmail.com 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
On Tuesday 16 February 2010 16:47:03 Grant Rettke wrote:
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Ashish Agarwal agarwal1...@gmail.com
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
