Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
Void type?
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Jon Harrop <jon@f...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Void type?
On Sunday 29 July 2007 12:05:47 Arnaud Spiwack wrote:
> It is the good solution if you work with the original syntax (and it's
> absolutely equivalent to the dual definition in term of empty variant
> which you can write in the revised syntax).

I don't quite understand this "empty variant from the revised syntax thing". 
How is:

  type void

not an empty variant?

Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
OCaml for Scientists