well technically they aren't aware of it, just like literals aren't necessarily aware. But when you write the code, that resolution happens. So when I write:

well technically they aren't aware of it, just like literals aren't necessarily aware. But when you write the code, that resolution happens. So when I write: f x = if x=0 then 1 else f (x-1) it looks at the definition and resolves the naming of f at that moment. Just like it does for x. The idea that the identifier f is referring to "whatever f is bound to at the moment this function is run" seems extremely scary: the obvious alternative is to simply pass in a continuation! Given the simple alternative, I can't see anyone defending the behaviour described in the article.