It's just that when you look up the label you get a list in reverse order:
last one first.
Would it be really clearer to reverse it at again when printing?

Jacques
2013/03/13 2:08 "Gabriel Scherer" <gabriel.scherer@gmail.com>:

> Also on the new warning (thanks for the quick change!): I find it a
> bit strange that the message gives a list of possibilities then says
> "The first one was selected", while in my mental model the *last*
> declared type is chosen by default. I don't know if it's actually
> possible to list types by declaration order (levels?), but maybe you
> could at least arrange so that the selected one appears last? Or at
> least you could reword into "The last declaration of this field has
> type M.t, but types M.u and N.t would also be valid".
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Jacques Carette <carette@mcmaster.ca>
> wrote:
> > On 13-03-12 11:05 AM, Jacques Garrigue wrote:
> >>
> >> I have improved the warning (revision 13395), so that it tells you the
> >> types involved. This should actually help in some hairy situations.
> >
> >
> > Would it also make sense to give the fully qualified names for the
> ambiguous
> > fields?  This should also give a strong hint as to where the conflict
> comes
> > from.
> >
> > (another)  Jacques
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
> > https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
> > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>