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 <ngnr63q02@sneakemail.com> wrote:

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