From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <petchema@concept-micro.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled 
	version=3.1.3
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70D50BB84
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:03:34 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnEFAHHPpkhYvxoL/2dsb2JhbACBYrB4gVg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,222,1217800800"; 
   d="scan'208";a="16037106"
Received: from ns.graphicgalerie.com ([88.191.26.11])
  by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 16 Aug 2008 22:03:34 +0200
Received: from polo.concept-micro.com (ABordeaux-103-1-1-99.w80-11.abo.wanadoo.fr [80.11.86.99])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by ns.graphicgalerie.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1C3BE1C002
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:03:32 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:02:58 +0200
From: Pierre =?UTF-8?B?RXRjaGVtYcOvdMOp?= <petchema@concept-micro.com>
To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Value shadowing (tangent)
Message-ID: <20080816220258.51bb5a5c@polo.concept-micro.com>
In-Reply-To: <20080813110546.GA22672@snarc.org>
References: <9E2C98C8798A487DAE77F20A9DC4F1E8@countertenor>
	<7C6C7ADD-910D-4C62-92FF-E286F0817FA1@cs.berkeley.edu>
	<EF829D322A1E44658F238F9576578406@countertenor>
	<1C96BA4C-8E65-44AA-96CD-C1CA399635E2@cs.berkeley.edu>
	<20080813110546.GA22672@snarc.org>
Organization: Concept Micro 33 SARL
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.5.0 (GTK+ 2.12.11; i486-pc-linux-gnu)
X-Face: "1<D_YW=(Z@$kl':M7Gci`gAa"U.$bCElfWd@{578%xR_9MHE`RMTfG%f.dMf^xIS("~Dw$
 sCx~,%u0+T^YTq]o
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam: no; 0.00; 0100,:01 'let':01 caml-list:01 pierre:02 pierre:02 let:03 indentation:04 indentation:04 scope:04 scope:04 guess:04 distinguish:05 wed:06 vincent:07 previous:10 

Le Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:05:46 +0100, Vincent Hanquez <tab@snarc.org> a écrit :

> however i understand why some people do it the first way. after the "in"
> you're in some sort of new scope (previous scope augmented by your
> let binds)

On the other hand, the 'let' scope will end exactly at the same place as
the englobing scope. Since you can't close one without closing the
other, it doesn't make a lot of sense (both practically and mentally)
to distinguish them, thru indentation of otherwise.

I guess that's what 'justifies' the recommended indentation.

Best regards,
Pierre.