Daniel de Rauglaudre <daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr> writes:

> On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 05:17:37PM -0500, Dave Mason wrote:
> 
> > The `obvious' solution is to make raise be a statement rather than a
> > function.  That has the added benefit of making raise a little
> > clearer, to wit, instead of:
> 
> I thought of it, but it would not work. If "raise something" is an
> expression, as there is a rule "expr expr", then you can syntactically
> write:
>     
>     exception Foo;;
>     raise Foo 33 "bar" true;;
> 
> No solution.

Even if we change the priority of the application of raise ?

-- 
Rémi Vanicat
vanicat@labri.u-bordeaux.fr
http://dept-info.labri.u-bordeaux.fr/~vanicat
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr