0005351: a function cannot have _ as name

(0006107)
Christophe Troestler (reporter)
2011-08-29 17:28

I personally would use it to disable some part of the code — say some tests during development that I would like to keep for reference (this is in research code, not production one). It is easy to switch from “let () =” to “let _ () =”.

(0006111)
Christophe Troestler (reporter)
2011-09-03 20:22

Also, “let _ () = ...” is accepted if one uses camlp4 — probably because it is transformed into ”let _ = fun () -> ...”.

(0006116)
xleroy (administrator)
2011-09-06 16:29

"_" is a pattern, not an identifier, so
     let _ = ...
is accepted just like
     let (x,y,z) = ...
is accepted. However, it wouldn't make sense to accept
     let (x,y,z) arg = ...
as some kind of function definition... So, for this reason, I'm uncomfortable with
     let _ arg = ...

In your particular example, what about writing the below?

let _ = fun (x : some_object_type) -> (x :> some_super_object_type)

(0006711)
lefessan (developer)
2012-01-17 23:25

This feature is "suspended" until new uses of anonymous functions appear. In the meantime, you can use Xavier's workaround:

let _ = fun (x : some_object_type) -> (x :> some_super_object_type)

Issue History
Date Modified	Username	Field	Change
2011-08-28 22:02	gerd	New Issue
2011-08-29 17:28	Christophe Troestler	Note Added: 0006107
2011-09-03 20:22	Christophe Troestler	Note Added: 0006111
2011-09-06 16:29	xleroy	Note Added: 0006116
2011-09-06 16:29	xleroy	Status	new => feedback
2012-01-17 23:25	lefessan	Note Added: 0006711
2012-01-17 23:25	lefessan	Status	feedback => resolved
2012-01-17 23:25	lefessan	Resolution	open => suspended
2012-01-17 23:25	lefessan	Assigned To	=> lefessan

Notes
(0006107) Christophe Troestler (reporter) 2011-08-29 17:28	I personally would use it to disable some part of the code — say some tests during development that I would like to keep for reference (this is in research code, not production one). It is easy to switch from “let () =” to “let _ () =”.

(0006111) Christophe Troestler (reporter) 2011-09-03 20:22	Also, “let _ () = ...” is accepted if one uses camlp4 — probably because it is transformed into ”let _ = fun () -> ...”.

(0006116) xleroy (administrator) 2011-09-06 16:29	"_" is a pattern, not an identifier, so let _ = ... is accepted just like let (x,y,z) = ... is accepted. However, it wouldn't make sense to accept let (x,y,z) arg = ... as some kind of function definition... So, for this reason, I'm uncomfortable with let _ arg = ... In your particular example, what about writing the below? let _ = fun (x : some_object_type) -> (x :> some_super_object_type)

(0006711) lefessan (developer) 2012-01-17 23:25	This feature is "suspended" until new uses of anonymous functions appear. In the meantime, you can use Xavier's workaround: let _ = fun (x : some_object_type) -> (x :> some_super_object_type)

Relationships