From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E2597EE51 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:19:26 +0200 (CEST) Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of dhouse@janestreet.com) identity=pra; client-ip=38.105.200.229; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="dhouse@janestreet.com"; x-sender="dhouse@janestreet.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of dhouse@janestreet.com designates 38.105.200.229 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=38.105.200.229; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="dhouse@janestreet.com"; x-sender="dhouse@janestreet.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@tot-dmz-mxout1.janestreet.com) identity=helo; client-ip=38.105.200.229; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="dhouse@janestreet.com"; x-sender="postmaster@tot-dmz-mxout1.janestreet.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Aq0BANA9mlEmacjlnGdsb2JhbABahiy+S3geDgEBAQEBBg0JCRQogh8BAQVAAQE3AQ8LCw0uIQESAQUBHAYTh3sDDwOeM4p+hD4BBYRhDYhoBoxKglcHg1SVVYFmjB2DPhYphDY X-IPAS-Result: Aq0BANA9mlEmacjlnGdsb2JhbABahiy+S3geDgEBAQEBBg0JCRQogh8BAQVAAQE3AQ8LCw0uIQESAQUBHAYTh3sDDwOeM4p+hD4BBYRhDYhoBoxKglcHg1SVVYFmjB2DPhYphDY X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,707,1363129200"; d="scan'208";a="18189819" Received: from mx5.janestreet.com (HELO tot-dmz-mxout1.janestreet.com) ([38.105.200.229]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 20 May 2013 17:19:25 +0200 Received: from tot-oib-smtp1.delacy.com ([172.27.22.15] helo=tot-smtp) by tot-dmz-mxout1.janestreet.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UeRrw-00078F-Kf for caml-list@inria.fr; Mon, 20 May 2013 11:19:24 -0400 Received: from tot-dmz-mxgoog1.delacy.com ([172.27.224.14] helo=mxgoog2.janestreet.com) by tot-smtp with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UeRrw-0002lM-It for caml-list@inria.fr; Mon, 20 May 2013 11:19:24 -0400 Received: from mail-oa0-f45.google.com ([209.85.219.45]) by mxgoog2.janestreet.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UeRrw-0001z7-Fv for caml-list@inria.fr; Mon, 20 May 2013 11:19:24 -0400 Received: by mail-oa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id j6so7871238oag.18 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 08:19:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=janestreet.com; s=google; h=x-received:mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=7LSFJyeG2DV0zO76lilYsy4L1kRjWB+4PhFTXtw1IiQ=; b=cNkR1lPHADTzNGa9/+XT88//k/02glQH3zyvPj8ndR00f/JNeUyHLcpON/TkVhrFAH Oa42MyXgngRsDRqEcwoNCY+qatsHwbJG5V/ZwgM76WFIvNebCftJW5Yb3UbdhSGWOVdc 6kiLw77TD+uSK6A3CxsvVRy9hR5qm5VJ1aFN0= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=7LSFJyeG2DV0zO76lilYsy4L1kRjWB+4PhFTXtw1IiQ=; b=U8vt3Z9wijqg+TVymtr5w9MfEJombCwxwOZoMhN1rqxw1BTVkU4yh85lm+Y2PUlKIY LfupEVaesXUEJ0DHFquz0yzHsaCS0Y0tR/2QpyIqEe5QsSmjZIcaTq79E3KWuafTuR9Y dOPlJMO6nc+JnpYeQYe31gHIw9caM3fTXFgBF1fBRGTiWWHGybVUm6i48+gl0Vjznavy 0MTWmbqODswFA3aV82pzDedmPwNVvySKcKFHZ0jSxbHRxnZo0K2tf8r8Kou7p0bDP465 Baoy5fUMODoMfFojZtTPR31apTMwzepxNOziZUk+ggmgiysGXAAutRYtBAMafm3PoAra CbGQ== X-Received: by 10.60.179.42 with SMTP id dd10mr1410731oec.124.1369063164214; Mon, 20 May 2013 08:19:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.179.42 with SMTP id dd10mr1410727oec.124.1369063164143; Mon, 20 May 2013 08:19:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.171.135 with HTTP; Mon, 20 May 2013 08:19:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1369060290.43256.YahooMailNeo@web120405.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 16:19:24 +0100 Message-ID: From: David House To: Julien Blond Cc: Dario Teixeira , OCaml mailing-list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmDBpj7MJCGTkIJ2mENQW6Ot/1TBssHYkdCqkL5pt27wUb2HLP7mN8EUbwAy3gV5paiMPGatOKtDfYMQUy2e6zJqrlq6jxz9F/cyDonlCAZEJ1r+yZpDddj7PP8Y8OburAUgQVB4PA9DVA5pFoXkZTPc1xKww== Subject: Re: [Caml-list] The rec/nonrec debate On 20 May 2013 16:18, Julien Blond wrote: > I agree that making recursitivy more explicit is... well... more explicit :) > But I wonder if, in this case, this is truly relevant. In fact, when I look > at OCaml programs, I see many recursive types and very few type shadowing. Interesting. I think I see the opposite. Although both are reasonably common.