Why does ocaml need both "let" and "let rec"?

Question

Possible Duplicates:
Why are functions in OCaml/F# not recursive by default?
What's the reason of 'let rec' for impure functional language OCaml?

OCaml uses let to define a new function, or let rec to define a function that is recursive. Why does it need both of these - couldn't we just use let for everything?

For example, to define a non-recursive successor function and recursive factorial in OCaml (actually, in the OCaml interpreter) I might write

let succ n = n + 1;;

let rec fact n =
    if n = 0 then 1 else n * fact (n-1);;

Whereas in Haskell (GHCI) I can write

let succ n = n + 1

let fact n =
    if n == 0 then 1 else n * fact (n-1)

Why does OCaml distinguish between let and let rec? Is it a performance issue, or something more subtle?

Answer 1

Well, having both available instead of only one gives the programmer tighter control on the scope. With let x = e1 in e2, the binding is only present in e2's environment, while with let rec x = e1 in e2 the binding is present in both e1 and e2's environments.

(Edit: I want to emphasize that it is not a performance issue, that makes no difference at all.)

Here are two situations where having this non-recursive binding is useful:

• shadowing an existing definition with a refinement that use the old binding. Something like: let f x = (let x = sanitize x in ...), where sanitize is a function that ensures the input has some desirable property (eg. it takes the norm of a possibly-non-normalized vector, etc.). This is very useful in some cases.

• metaprogramming, for example macro writing. Imagine I want to define a macro SQUARE(foo) that desugars into let x = foo in x * x, for any expression foo. I need this binding to avoid code duplication in the output (I don't want SQUARE(factorial n) to compute factorial n twice). This is only hygienic if the let binding is not recursive, otherwise I couldn't write let x = 2 in SQUARE(x) and get a correct result.

So I claim it is very important indeed to have both the recursive and the non-recursive binding available. Now, the default behaviour of the let-binding is a matter of convention. You could say that let x = ... is recursive, and one must use let nonrec x = ... to get the non-recursive binder. Picking one default or the other is a matter of which programming style you want to favor and there are good reasons to make either choice. Haskell suffers¹ from the unavailability of this non-recursive mode, and OCaml has exactly the same defect at the type level : type foo = ... is recursive, and there is no non-recursive option available -- see this blog post.

¹: when Google Code Search was available, I used it to search in Haskell code for the pattern let x' = sanitize x in .... This is the usual workaround when non-recursive binding is not available, but it's less safe because you risk writing x instead of x' by mistake later on -- in some cases you want to have both available, so picking a different name can be voluntary. A good idiom would be to use a longer variable name for the first x, such as unsanitized_x. Anyway, just looking for x' literally (no other variable name) and x1 turned a lot of results. Erlang (and all language that try to make variable shadowing difficult: Coffeescript, etc.) has even worse problems of this kind.

That said, the choice of having Haskell bindings recursive by default (rather than non-recursive) certainly makes sense, as it is consistent with lazy evaluation by default, which makes it really easy to build recursive values -- while strict-by-default languages have more restrictions on which recursive definitions make sense.