From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: by pauillac.inria.fr; Mon, 30 May 94 11:59:55 +0200
Received: from margaux.inria.fr by pauillac.inria.fr; Sat, 28 May 94 13:12:49 +0200
Received: from pauillac.inria.fr by margaux.inria.fr, Sat, 28 May 1994 13:12:47 +0200
Received: from localhost.inria.fr by pauillac.inria.fr; Sat, 28 May 94 13:12:47 +0200
To: Christophe Raffalli <cr@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: Judicael.Courant@lip.ens-lyon.fr, caml-list@margaux.inria.fr
Subject: Re: Irrelevant variables in patterns 
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 28 May 1994 12:08:22 -0000.
             <13661.9405281108@colonsay.dcs.ed.ac.uk> 
Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 13:12:46 +0200
Message-Id: <29741.770123566@pauillac.inria.fr>
From: Chet Murthy <murthy@pauillac.inria.fr>
Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr


>>>>> On Sat, 28 May 1994 12:08:22 -0000, Christophe Raffalli <cr@dcs.ed.ac.uk> said:

> 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.

	CR> I strongly disagree with this statement. If you get a lot of
	CR> warning, it means you have a particular style of programming
	CR> (for instance catching all exceptions in most of the
	CR> handler). Then what you really needs is a compiler option to
	CR> discard a particular warning (or class or warning) so you only
	CR> get the warnings which are relevant to you programming style.

How about an ML-Lint?  Anybody out there writing one?

--chet--