Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
[Caml-list] mutually dependent modules
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ 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