John,
That's classic mutual recursion. In your example, the values of b and c
depend entirely on f. For example what if
f = const a
Now b and c are obviously a and its not ambiguous. Similarly, mutually
recursive functions can compute values for b and c.
Do you have a similar issue with a definition like:
b = f a b
or is that fine? If so, why? If not, why not?
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 11:24 AM, John M. Dlugosz
I don't mind recursive *functions*. It's recursive definition of single computed values that looked odd to me. Lazy evaluation makes all the difference. Looking at b= f a c
c = f a b I was thinking, "how can it figure out what b and c need to be?" because I'm used to this meaning that it needs to come up with an actual value right now.
_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners