Browse thread
[Caml-list] mutually dependent modules
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | cashin@c... |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] mutually dependent modules |
Christophe TROESTLER <debian00@tiscali.be> writes: > On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Issac Trotts <ijtrotts@ucdavis.edu> wrote: >> >> I've seen both, but I now avoid the "let _ = " expression because if >> you leave it out then ocamlc gives a warning when you don't supply >> all the arguments to a function. The warning is good to have. > > Use > let () = ... Thanks for the advice. Why is that a good idea? Right now, it seems like the let idiom is only helpful in a few specific instances. -- --Ed L Cashin | PGP public key: ecashin@uga.edu | http://noserose.net/e/pgp/ ------------------- 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