From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8DCBBC57 for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 08:39:48 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AowAAFuW8UxCbwQZkWdsb2JhbACVDI4BFQEBAQEJCwoHEQQewgKFRwSEXIkU X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,269,1288566000"; d="scan'208";a="89502815" Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 28 Nov 2010 08:39:48 +0100 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.42]) by gateway1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02DA81EA for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 02:39:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend2.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.161]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 28 Nov 2010 02:39:47 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: eoKKAIDNTWcFy6Vesyswv/HfoJzTPaGRlFz7C46RpaOW 1290929986 Received: from [192.168.2.2] (c-98-248-39-171.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [98.248.39.171]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 992455E46CD for ; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 02:39:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4CF2077D.30101@ens-lyon.org> Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 23:40:45 -0800 From: Martin Jambon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20101023 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] zero-arity constructor References: <1290851344516@names.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam: no; 0.00; ens-lyon:01 ocaml:01 camlp:01 ocaml:01 23,:98 wrote:01 typing:01 caml-list:01 constructor:01 constructor:01 jambon:01 jambon:01 argument:02 static:03 perhaps:05 On 11/27/10 04:23, Julia Lawall wrote: > In my case, I originally thought that the constructor should take an > argument, then changed my mind. I would have hoped that OCaml would have > found the inconsistency. That's what static typing is for. Thus, I > find the change quite disappointing. I also find the change uninspired. > Perhaps it would have been nicer to have an option to allow the behavior > that is useful in the camlp4 case, rather than making it the default. Could the warning be turned on by default in the next OCaml release, please? Martin