[erlang-questions] re cursive fun()

[Hynek Vychodil]

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Robert Virding <rvirding@REDACTED> wrote:

> It seems like there are two separate threads here: one is about defining
> recursive functions in the shell; and the other is about defining local
> (recursive) functions in a module.
>

You can use same tricks in module as in shell (if you are pervert a little
;-).

>
>
> The first case has been reasonably covered in how you create a fun with a
> reference to itself so it can call itself recursively.
>
> In the second case I must agree with Richard, there is no *need* to have
> local (to a function) functions, you can just use normal top-level
> functions. They *are * more efficient than funs. I have found, however, that
> I sometimes use funs as local functions when I want to stress that these are
> local functions. Especially after a bout of LFE hacking which has them.
>

I agree, there is always way how to do refactoring to local recursive
functions and make up funs from those. (There should not be difference in
performance, it is Erlang fault if is. But there is long way to this goal,
for example hot spot compiler and such thinks.)

I strongly agree with following, especially with EPP and Self thinks.

>
>
> However, if it was really desired it would be possible to add them, of
> course you would need both the recursive and non-recursive options. It would
> be a bit of a contrived expression as it would not, *could not*, return
> anything sensible. I would not like to add a scoping let type construction
> as we don't have having scoping anywhere else. Well except in funs and
> comprehensions where the scoping is a bit off actually. The visibility rules
> for the defined functions would be a bit hairy, very hairy really, but the
> best would be to make them the same as for variables, which are very hairy.
>
> I have no intention of adding an EEP!
>
> I don't like the idea of Self.
>
> A rather humourous note is local functions in Core erlang. In Core yo have
> local functions, but only the mutually recursive type. These were originally
> added to implement comprehensions so only the recursive kind were needed.
>
> A solution would be do what I used to threaten Bjarne with: do an E2 and
> get it right. What ever right is.
>
> Robert
>
>


-- 
--Hynek (Pichi) Vychodil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20081008/fdd933d5/attachment.htm>