From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id LAA02729; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:56:28 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 LAA00580 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:56:26 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp [130.54.16.1]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i8L9uOvg025800 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:56:25 +0200 Received: from localhost (suiren.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp [130.54.16.25]) by kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (8.9.3p2-20030924/3.7W) with ESMTP id SAA27366; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:56:18 +0900 (JST) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:56:18 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20040921.185618.62576222.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> To: zack@bononia.it Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: OCAML Downcasting? From: Jacques GARRIGUE In-Reply-To: <20040921093408.GA4366@fistandantilus.takhisis.org> References: <20040921104306.0e472a0e@localhost.localdomain> <20040921.181531.71542839.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> <20040921093408.GA4366@fistandantilus.takhisis.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 4.0.64 on Emacs 21.2 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 414FFAC8.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 downcasting:01 jacques:01 bononia:01 2004:99 0900,:01 jacques:01 ocamlc:01 ocamlc:01 bug:01 mli:01 mli:01 bug:01 ocaml:01 garrigue:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk From: Stefano Zacchiroli > On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 06:15:31PM +0900, Jacques GARRIGUE wrote: > > > even "ocamlc -i" fails ! > > You're right. > > Anyway, shouldn't this be considered an "ocamlc -i" bug? > > I used to assume that: > > ocamlc -i a.ml > a.mli > ocamlc -c a.mli > ocamlc -c a.ml > > should work for every compilable a.ml. Was I wrong? This is intended to be so, eventhough this is not always easy to print a type both exactly and concisely... In the present case, there clearly seems to be a bug, independently of the error in the example. Jacques Garrigue ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners