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

[Martin Jambon <martin.jambon@ens-lyon.org>]

On 01/02/2012 04:05 PM, 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?

What I am wondering is why type definitions are recursive by default. It
is mostly troubling for beginners.

The following is an occasional inconvenience of having only recursive
type definitions:

module A =
struct
  type t = ...
  let compare = ...

  module B =
  struct
    type t = t (* uh oh *)
    let compare = compare
  end
end


Martin