Re: [Caml-list] Examples where let rec is undesirable

["Richard W.M. Jones" <rich@annexia.org>]

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 01:05:39AM +0100, Lukasz Stafiniak wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons
> <dofp.ocaml@gmail.com> wrote:
> >     List,
> >
> > I was wondering if there was any reason not to make "let rec" the default /
> > sole option, meaning cases where you clearly don't want a "let rec" instead
> > of "let" (only in functions, not cyclic data).
> >
> >          Diego Olivier
> 
> The default "no-rec" allows for name recycling -- using the same name
> for an incrementally transformed value, i.e. to bind the intermediate
> results. Name recycling minimizes the cognitive burden: there are less
> names to remember in a scope, and differences in names are justified
> by differences in purpose of the values. Are there reasons to consider
> name recycling a bad style?

I had an argument about this with a noted open source developer
recently.  He was saying that C's approach -- not permitting variable
names to be reused within a single function -- was somehow
advantageous.  From my point of view, having used both languages
extensively, OCaml's way is *far* better.

So yes, 'let' and 'let rec', long may they be different.

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones
Red Hat