The following code compiles in 3.12.0 but doesn't compile in 3.10.2. Is it
a bug or a feature?
type ty = A | B
let start x =
match x with
A _ -> ()
| _ -> ()
julia
___
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi
On 11/26/2010 10:46 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> The following code compiles in 3.12.0 but doesn't compile in 3.10.2.
> Is it a bug or a feature?
>
It's a feature that was implemented in 3.11.0 (iirc).
See: http://caml.inria.fr/mantis/view.php?id=4675 (and other related
bugreports).
Regards,
--
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 11/26/2010 10:46 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > The following code compiles in 3.12.0 but doesn't compile in 3.10.2.
> > Is it a bug or a feature?
> >
>
> It's a feature that was implemented in 3.11.0 (iirc).
>
> See: http://caml.inria.fr/mantis/view.
A quick summary for those like me that didn't follow the change and were
baffled to find out that "it's not a bug, it's a feature".
The change was asked for by Alain Frisch in 2006 (
http://caml.inria.fr/mantis/view.php?id=4052 ) and finally added in ocaml
3.11. The rationale is to make it easy to
Surely it's preferable to use a syntactically distinct mechanism for this
subtly different concept. Given that we're talking about patterns and not
general expressions here, surely there's plenty of space in the syntax.
Perhaps something like '*' to mean 0 or more. Or is it already too late
becau
Mark Adams wrote:
> Surely it's preferable to use a syntactically distinct mechanism for this
> subtly different concept. Given that we're talking about patterns and not
> general expressions here, surely there's plenty of space in the syntax.
> Perhaps something like '*' to mean 0 or more.
Even
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 10:49 AM, wrote:
> Surely it's preferable to use a syntactically distinct mechanism for this
> subtly different concept.
Agreed.
> Perhaps something like '*' to mean 0 or more. Or is it already too late
> because '_' has already been incorporated and backwards compati
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.
Perhaps it would have been nicer to have an op
A quick follow-up on my post, about a discontinuity in the current syntax.
It is possible to write a pattern to ignore the two parameters of a
constructor, but fail if the constructor has a different number of parameter
: Foo (_, _).
To my knowledge, it is not possible to ignore one parameter, but
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.
On 11/27/2010 11:31 AM, bluestorm wrote:
Reversing the specific
0-ary modification suggested by Alain is probably easier, as I suspect
most users don't use that one much, but Alain probably makes use of it;
As I've been designated as the primary responsible for that uninspired
change (I plead
On 2010-11-28, at 12:13, Alain Frisch wrote:
> As I've been designated as the primary responsible for that uninspired change
> (I plead guilty), I guess it is my responsibility to state here that frankly,
> I don't give a damn. That said, enabling the warning by default sounds better
> to me t
On 2010-11-27, at 11:21, David Allsopp wrote:
> and set Warning 28 to be on by default for [Foo _] - that would simply mean
> that 3.11/3.12 code using that syntax would emit warnings in "3.13" rather
> than actually breaking (unless you've including -warn-error - but that's
> always seemed to
13 matches
Mail list logo
