← Back to context Comment by mananaysiempre 2 years ago Same as the rest of the ML family then. 3 comments mananaysiempre Reply mjaniczek 2 years ago Nah, Elm doesn't need the rec keyword and could be argued to be a ML descendant bunderbunder 2 years ago Same as the rest of the functional languages, even. mananaysiempre 2 years ago My first functional language was Haskell, which essentially only has a letrec, so afterwards I’ve always viewed everybody else’s approach as a bit peculiar :) Fair point that it’s the Lisp way too.
mjaniczek 2 years ago Nah, Elm doesn't need the rec keyword and could be argued to be a ML descendant
bunderbunder 2 years ago Same as the rest of the functional languages, even. mananaysiempre 2 years ago My first functional language was Haskell, which essentially only has a letrec, so afterwards I’ve always viewed everybody else’s approach as a bit peculiar :) Fair point that it’s the Lisp way too.
mananaysiempre 2 years ago My first functional language was Haskell, which essentially only has a letrec, so afterwards I’ve always viewed everybody else’s approach as a bit peculiar :) Fair point that it’s the Lisp way too.
Nah, Elm doesn't need the rec keyword and could be argued to be a ML descendant
Same as the rest of the functional languages, even.
My first functional language was Haskell, which essentially only has a letrec, so afterwards I’ve always viewed everybody else’s approach as a bit peculiar :) Fair point that it’s the Lisp way too.