[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       haskell-cafe
Subject:    Re: [Haskell-cafe] Compiler's bane
From:       "Jeremy Apthorp" <nornagon () gmail ! com>
Date:       2008-08-31 21:33:32
Message-ID: 14d615330808311433v211e24e0m2a596dba1f2c2962 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

2008/9/1 Andrew Coppin <andrewcoppin@btinternet.com>:
> Ryan Ingram wrote:
>>
>> What are you trying to get from the "let" binding?  Sharing?
>>
>
> Convinience.
>
>  let x = foo in bar
>
> is so much easier to write than
>
>  (\x -> bar) foo
>
> when foo and/or bar is large.
>
> Trouble is, as soon as you allow let-bindings, some clever person is going
> to start writing recursive ones. And actually, that's a useful thing to be
> able to do, but it makes figuring out the technical details... rather
> nontrivial. (Seriously, I had no idea I was going to get into this much
> trouble!)

I'm confused -- why is this different to having recursive top-level bindings?

Jeremy
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]