From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by pauillac.inria.fr; Mon, 30 May 94 11:58:37 +0200 Received: from margaux.inria.fr by pauillac.inria.fr; Sat, 28 May 94 13:11:28 +0200 Received: from concorde.inria.fr by margaux.inria.fr, Sat, 28 May 1994 13:11:26 +0200 Received: from stroma.dcs.ed.ac.uk (mmdf@stroma.dcs.ed.ac.uk [129.215.160.108]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA24838 for ; Sat, 28 May 1994 13:11:26 +0200 Received: from colonsay.dcs.ed.ac.uk by dcs.ed.ac.uk id aa23267; 28 May 94 12:08 BST Date: Sat, 28 May 94 12:08:22 BST Message-Id: <13661.9405281108@colonsay.dcs.ed.ac.uk> From: Christophe Raffalli Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr To: Chet.Murthy@inria.fr Cc: Chet.Murthy@inria.fr, Judicael.Courant@lip.ens-lyon.fr, caml-list@margaux.inria.fr In-Reply-To: <29438.770121809@pauillac.inria.fr> (Chet.Murthy@inria.fr) Subject: Irrelevant variables in patterns > Superfluous warning confuse the programmer, and cause him to disregard > the warnings completely. Which can cause him real pain when it was a > warning that he should have heeded. I strongly disagree with this statement. If you get a lot of warning, it means you have a particular style of programming (for instance catching all exceptions in most of the handler). Then what you really needs is a compiler option to discard a particular warning (or class or warning) so you only get the warnings which are relevant to you programming style. Christophe.