From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64D15BC2F for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 01:11:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id iAQ0BuIf018122 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 01:11:57 +0100 Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA02035 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 01:11:56 +0100 (MET) Received: from smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.203]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id iAQ0BscX020407 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 01:11:55 +0100 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (ppp217-171.lns1.syd3.internode.on.net [203.122.217.171]) by smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iAQ0BkOU001498; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:41:46 +1030 (CST) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Why doesn't ocamlopt detect a missing ; after failwith statement? From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net To: Nicolas Cannasse Cc: caml-list In-Reply-To: <005701c4d333$c3bc31e0$19b0e152@warp> References: <20041125204628.GA24215@annexia.org> <005701c4d333$c3bc31e0$19b0e152@warp> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1101427906.9291.107.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 26 Nov 2004 11:11:46 +1100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 41A674CC.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 41A674CA.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ocamlopt:01 failwith:01 sourceforge:01 cannasse:01 wrote:01 val:01 failwith:01 prerr:01 endline:01 unify:01 unify:01 prerr:01 endline:01 glebe:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Level: On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 08:14, Nicolas Cannasse wrote: > > All well and good, but I don't understand why it doesn't warn me about > > the missing ';' in the first case. > > val failwith : string -> 'a > > so failwith "error" prerr_endline "OK"; > > is a valid call since 'a unify with (string -> unit) -> string -> unit .. a problem which could not occur were there a void type which couldn't unify with 'a, and prerr_endline had type string-> void. -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net