On 11/27/10 04:23, Julia Lawall wrote: > In my case, I originally thought that the constructor should take an > argument, then changed my mind. I would have hoped that OCaml would have > found the inconsistency. That's what static typing is for. Thus, I > find the change quite disappointing.
I also find the change uninspired. > Perhaps it would have been nicer to have an option to allow the behavior > that is useful in the camlp4 case, rather than making it the default. Could the warning be turned on by default in the next OCaml release, please? Martin _______________________________________________ Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
