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
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/?e