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
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