Arnaud Spiwack wrote:
> A (too) quick answer could of course be: "in the absence of a 'with 
> clause', it is considered the identity 'with clause'". But I'm not sure 
> it's that satisfying in practice. (it precisely and accurately adresses 
> this very case John Skaller is raising, but not the same example with an 
> additional variable in each constructor...).
> 
> A suitable solution for nested guarded patterns could be, instead of 
> saying "all the branches of the or-pattern must agree on the variable", 
> to use a less coercive, but more compromising law : "only the variable 
> common in all the branches of the or-pattern are bound in the match 
> branch".

This seems like a good rule.  I think it should be refined a little, 
though.  The refinement is: "any variables which occur free in the 
expression must be bound in either all or no branches of the pattern". 
For example, this should be an error:

   let z = 3

   let f = function
     | A x with z = 10
     | B x -> x + z

Without the refinement `f (A 5)' evaluates to 8, which is pretty 
confusing (even with an unused variable warning).

Jeremy.