Yaron Minsky yminsky@janestreet.com:

> Interesting.  Anyone know if the disabling of 21 with strict-sequence
> is a fundamental issue, or just an accident?  It seems best to have
> both available at once.


This is most certainly an accident.
I should look into that.
(However preserving 21 would change some error messages too)

This said, I personally do not like the statement warning, and I'm not a
big fan of
-strict-sequence either, as both require changes in APIs.
This said, I prefer the option to the warning: at least it gives strong
guarantees.

Jacques

>
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 8:42 AM, ygrek <ygrek@autistici.org <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have one problem with this option. Basically - it disables warning 21.
> Consider:
> >
> > $ ocaml
> >
> > # let f () = exit 0; 1;;
> > Characters 11-17:
> >   let f () = exit 0; 1;;
> >              ^^^^^^
> > Warning 21: this statement never returns (or has an unsound type.)
> > val f : unit -> int = <fun>
> >
> > $ ocaml -strict-sequence
> >
> > # let f () = exit 0; 1;;
> > val f : unit -> int = <fun>
> >
> > So I choose to disable this option and strictly require `let () =` when
> calling callbacks.
> >
> > --
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
> --
> 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
>