Browse thread
Why doesn't ocamlopt detect a missing ; after failwith statement?
[
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: | 2004-11-26 (07:05) |
From: | Nicolas Cannasse <warplayer@f...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Why doesn't ocamlopt detect a missing ; after failwith statement? |
> P.S. > I believe the problem with failwith is solvable, albeit rather > complicated. The idea is that you want to be warned when you apply a > function of type (\forall 'a. 'a) to something, because no such > function may exist, so that this application will never actually take > place. > > This could be done attempting to generalize the type of the function, > once we now it is a type variable. > I'll have a try. Wouldn't that break Obj.magic ? I can't see a clear solution to this problem, unless enabling arity specification into polymorphic variables : 'a.0 for example, but this would also break something like : let f x = if x then failwith "error" else fun() -> x I guess it's more like a syntax problem. For example having parenthesis for function calls à la C would disable any ambiguity. Nicolas