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: | Michal Moskal <malekith@p...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] mutually dependent modules |
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 09:18:49PM -0800, Issac Trotts 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.
let () = f a b c in
let () = g c in
let () = a := b in
...
but after writing lots of imperative code (using camlgl), I found
regular:
f a b c;
g c;
a := b;
...
clearer.
All you need is to remember priority of ';' WRT if-then, match and so
on.
--
: Michal Moskal ::::: malekith/at/pld-linux.org : GCS {C,UL}++++$ a? !tv
: PLD Linux ::::::: Wroclaw University, CS Dept : {E-,w}-- {b++,e}>+++ h
-------------------
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