From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch>
X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18F227EEFA
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:48:59 +0100 (CET)
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:D3Iv1xGOvGIaVANZDfoTG51GYnF86YWxBRYc798ds5kLTJ75oMuwAkXT6L1XgUPTWs2DsrQf27eQ6/iocFdDyKjCmUhKSIZLWR4BhJdetC0bK+nBN3fGKuX3ZTcxBsVIWQwt1Xi6NU9IBJS2PAWK8TWM5DIfUi/yKRBybrysXNWC0oLvj6ibwN76XUZhvHKFe7R8LRG7/036l/I9ps9cEJs30QbDuXBSeu5blitCLFOXmAvgtI/rpMYwuwwZgf8q9tZBXKPmZOx4COUAVHV1e1wysYfOr1+LbQaV/DFUBmAXiQZFGQjI9gvSUI38vy33qqxx1X/JE9fxSOUYUDKj4qNcYovumiMGf2o1+WfWh8g2hr9WpgClpjRy2ZTdfICMKfc4daOLLoBSfnZIQssED38JOYi7dYZaSrNZZes=
Authentication-Results: mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; spf=None smtp.pra=daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch; spf=None smtp.mailfrom=daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@smtp.webfaction.com
Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch) identity=pra;
  client-ip=74.55.86.74;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch";
  x-sender="daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch) identity=mailfrom;
  client-ip=74.55.86.74;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch";
  x-sender="daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@smtp.webfaction.com) identity=helo;
  client-ip=74.55.86.74;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch";
  x-sender="postmaster@smtp.webfaction.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AwAQCQl0RWnEpWN0pewz4BAYFvhhACgW0PAQEBAQEBAQEQAQEBAQEICwkJIS6CLYIIAQEEI1YQCxoCJgICRxAGG4gmsxWQZgEBAQcBAQEBAR6BAYpRhFmDHC+BFQWWSI8ChzIQjzaDcjkBAQGCToFdhi8BAQE
X-IPAS-Result: A0AwAQCQl0RWnEpWN0pewz4BAYFvhhACgW0PAQEBAQEBAQEQAQEBAQEICwkJIS6CLYIIAQEEI1YQCxoCJgICRxAGG4gmsxWQZgEBAQcBAQEBAR6BAYpRhFmDHC+BFQWWSI8ChzIQjzaDcjkBAQGCToFdhi8BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,281,1444687200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="153592837"
Received: from mail6.webfaction.com (HELO smtp.webfaction.com) ([74.55.86.74])
  by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 12 Nov 2015 14:48:57 +0100
Received: from [10.248.123.101] (global-5-144.nat-2.net.cam.ac.uk [131.111.5.144])
	by smtp.webfaction.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56FA7209BDA1;
	Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:48:54 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:48:53 +0000
From: =?utf-8?Q?Daniel_B=C3=BCnzli?= <daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch>
To: "Mr. Herr" <misterherr@freenet.de>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Message-ID: <9463C955F1814F02BE3D330F5C3E4E17@erratique.ch>
In-Reply-To: <5644845B.6000801@freenet.de>
References: <0F7D3B1B3C4B894D824F5B822E3E5A172CE3F4C5@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <5644845B.6000801@freenet.de>
X-Mailer: sparrow 1.6.4 (build 1178)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Suppress warning from within Ocaml source file

Le jeudi, 12 novembre 2015 =C3=A0 12:21, Mr. Herr a =C3=A9crit :
> On the other hand:
>=20=20
> it is quite possible that your with-construct is more harmful than useful:
>=20=20
> when extending the record, the compiler will not flag the lines in your c=
ode you have
> to check.


That still doesn't answer why this warning exists at all. Of course dependi=
ng on context you should or should not use `with` according to the kind of =
type-checking you want when you evolve your code base.

But the purpose of the `with` construct is precisely that you do not have t=
o list all the other fields which is quite natural for functional record up=
dates. Besides the kind of code evolution Michael mentions is also quite na=
tural and thus I don't see why the compiler should complain if you happen t=
o mention all the fields in the with construct.=20=20

Nobody provided me with a good answer to the question: why is this a proble=
m and I should be warned about this ? The only answer I got (cf PR 6179) wa=
s "we receive many complaints about warnings so just turn it off".

Daniel