> > I copied from SML and defined a procedure "ignore":
> > so now I would write:
> >   ignore (f x y); ...
> 
> I was considering adding this to the standard library, implemented in
> such a way that no function call actually takes place.  It seems to
> strike a reasonable balance between the safety of the warning and the
> inconvenience of writing "let _ = ..."

This is a nit, but I've noticed that for the bytecode compiler that 

let _ = foo() in ()

generates more instructions than for

foo(); ()

In particular, there is an extra "push" instruction (presumably for the
binding to _) in the former.  Is there any way to avoid this instruction
given that we know the binding is not going to really occur?
Mike

-- 
Michael Hicks
Ph.D. Candidate, the University of Pennsylvania
http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~mwh            mailto://mwh@dsl.cis.upenn.edu
"I worked with an individual who plugged his power strip back into itself
and for the life of him could not understand why his computer would not
turn on."