On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, Damien Doligez wrote:

> > The similar problem arises in a case
> > let ring l = let rec r = l@r in r
> > OCaml type system can not understand that the design is
> > safe.
>
> But it is not unconditionally safe.  Its safety depends on how
> you defined the @ function.  O'Caml doesn't want to look at
> the definition of @ because separate compilation is a very
> important feature.

 And why not declare safety flags in the .cmi files?
It's even possible to declare side-effects existance (but, there
will be some problems with bindings).

-------------------
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