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

[Lukasz Stafiniak <lukstafi@gmail.com>]

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?

Happy New Year,
Łukasz