On Jul 22, 2013, at 12:27 PM, Andreas Abel <andreas.a...@ifi.lmu.de> wrote:
> On 20.07.13 9:36 PM, Evan Laforge wrote: >> However, I'm also not agitating for a non-recursive let, I think that >> ship has sailed. Besides, if it were added people would start >> wondering about non-recursive where, and it would introduce an >> exception to haskell's pretty consistently order-independent >> declaration style. > > For functions, recursive-by-default let makes sense. But for *values*, > intended recursion is rather the exception. It is useful for infinite lists > and the like. For values of atomic type like Int or Bool, recursive let is a > bug. It seems hard to distinguish between them. What about values that contain functions, like data T = T Int (Int -> Int)? What about polymorphic values, that could be functions and could be not? _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
