From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A25FBB81 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 13:13:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.198]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j9BBDVxn023037 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 13:13:32 +0200 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id z31so313175nzd for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 04:13:31 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=qGQenYtjJJsQGw0l05ncUKbuI3UecFg3pdGOL9ktmWO5l2iMqSWpYsnunGMAUf0oNkx9MPo+SE6lMkO9J38nDX60ba3YUo4R/Ifuwkcpl/bxRYoXyICT3TTAnCTMS7ygue8Qm8xGcfy3D0GQKHTbn96/MLJuTbe4IzEU3X22C7Q= Received: by 10.36.139.17 with SMTP id m17mr5676174nzd; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 04:13:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.9.4 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 04:13:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 20:13:31 +0900 From: Eijiro Sumii Reply-To: sumii@ecei.tohoku.ac.jp To: Xavier Leroy Subject: Re: [Caml-list] line number in exception history? Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-Reply-To: <434B8142.5000407@inria.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <434B8142.5000407@inria.fr> X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 434B9E5B.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; eijiro:01 sumii:01 eijiro:01 sumii:01 caml-list:01 ...:98 wrote:01 exception:01 exception:01 raise:03 arg:03 arg:03 indeed:05 raises:05 raises:05 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_BY_IP autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 Thanks for your response! On 10/11/05, Xavier Leroy wrote: > Your code is strange: you do realize that > raise (invalid_arg "Give me positive!") > is weird because invalid_arg is a function that raises an exception itsel= f? Yes it is, but this was not quite my (or the student's) point... > This is indeed off by one line. In general, the location following the > function call is reported, i.e > > function_that_raises arg1 arg2 arg3 > ^ > reported location > > while in your example the following "in \n" is skipped. Maybe one of > us will look at this, but I don't fell it's a big issue. I see, that's just as I guessed. I agree it's not a big issue. What about the second example (in my follow-up message)? Best, Eijiro