dengping zhu wrote:

>type ty = ty1 -> ty2   
>
>let x = (f (g)) a
>
>... So, I was thinking that the compiler treated ty as an
>atomic type, not a function type.
>
I'm new to ocaml myself, so I'm only guessing. But it seems you could 
test your idea by removing the type definition for ty, allowing the 
compiler to infer the proper function type.

Just a thought-

-John
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners