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 KAA17506; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:23:26 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA16540 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:23:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mproxy.gmail.com (rproxy.gmail.com [64.233.170.203]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i7U8NP15026033 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:23:25 +0200 Received: by mproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 77so65087rnl for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 01:23:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.164.76 with SMTP id m76mr850280rne; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 01:23:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.75.19 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 01:23:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <7f8e92aa0408300123684481da@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 11:23:24 +0300 From: Radu Grigore Reply-To: Radu Grigore To: caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Subject: Re: Baffeld by manual (Was: [Caml-list] baffled by semicolon) In-Reply-To: <1093853217.9955.44.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <16685.22393.76718.150882@soggy.deldotd.com> <4132D36D.4020104@bik-gmbh.de> <1093853217.9955.44.camel@pelican.wigram> X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4132E3FD.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 baffled:01 semicolon:01 2004:99 sourceforge:01 sequencing:01 emitted:01 silently:01 explicitely:01 binary:02 unit:03 unit:03 wrote:03 argument:03 argument:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On 30 Aug 2004 18:06:58 +1000, skaller wrote: > The single ; is (usually) left associative binary sequencing > operator of type unit that takes two expressions of > type unit as an argument: Only the left argument should be unit (otherwise a warning is emitted since the result is silently ignored). The result of "e1; e2" is (except side effects) the same as the result of e2. So something like this: (); (); (); 1;; is perfectly legal and safe. The expression: 1; 2;; Gives a warning since the result of the first expression is ignored implicitely. To silence the warning you write: ignore (1); 2;; i.e., you ignore it explicitely. regards, radu ------------------- 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