From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id E79F2BB81
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Thu,  8 Dec 2005 04:10:38 +0100 (CET)
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 jB83Aafu031427
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:10:38 +0100
Received: from localhost (suiren [130.54.16.25])
	by kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jB83AHcx013748;
	Thu, 8 Dec 2005 12:10:17 +0900 (JST)
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 12:10:12 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <20051208.121012.49167263.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>
To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net
Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] partial application warning unreliable?
From: Jacques Garrigue <garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <1134009551.10435.24.camel@rosella>
References: <1134009551.10435.24.camel@rosella>
X-Mailer: Mew version 4.2 on Emacs 21.3 / 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 4397A42C.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)!
X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 srcref:01 token:01 srcref:01 bug:01 semicolon:01 trailing:01 semicolon:01 bug:01 sourceforge:01 polymorphic:01 partial:01 partial:01 behaviour:01 functions:01 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled 
	version=3.0.3

From: skaller <skaller@users.sourceforge.net>

>     method add_nonterminal (s:string) (sr:range_srcref) (toks:
> Flx_parse.token list) (term:ast_term_t) =
> 
> ...
>     state#add_nonterminal tok (Flx_srcref.slift sr) t;
> 
> Method has 4 arguments, but the call applies to only 3.
> 
> Woops, no warning!! Bad! This error of mine caused a serious
> bug -- the method call didn't do anything!

Wait a minute, is there anything after the semicolon?
The point is that a trailing semicolon at the end of a method
definition does nothing: it still returns the result of the previous
expression!
I wonder whether this behaviour is good or not, but this also means
that there is no reason to have a warning here.

If there is an expression after the semicolon, and you have no
warning, then file a bug report: the type system is supposed to detect
all partial applications in statements, except for functions whose
result is a polymorphic type variable.

By the way, your other example with classes is wrong:

# class cc = object (self) 
    method f x y = x + y 
    method g () = self#f 1;  
  end;;
class cc :
  object method f : int -> int -> int method g : unit -> int -> int end

No warning, for the reason stated above: the semicolon does nothing.

Jacques Garrigue