RE: [Caml-list] Suppress warning from within Ocaml source file

["Soegtrop, Michael" <michael.soegtrop@intel.com>]

Dear Daniel,

> That still doesn't answer why this warning exists at all. Of course depending
> on context you should or should not use `with` according to the kind of type-
> checking you want when you evolve your code base.

as far as I understood the point is that it is questionable if using with at all in such situations is a good idea. If with is not used and new fields are added, the compiler will warn about missing fields. Depending on the situation this might be more helpful, because even if you have a with, it might be that you still have to add new fields later, which is hidden by the with.

So one can argue that the point of this warning is that if a with already does provide some fields "automatically" it is useful, but if the with doesn't really do anything you might be better of without the with and the warnings you get when you extend the record.

I would say both views are valid, and it is a matter of taste.

Best regards,

Michael
Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de
Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Christian Lamprechter
Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
Registered Office: Munich
Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928