Hi Michael,

In the type definition

> # type testme = Foo of int * int;;

the constructor Foo takes *two* int arguments (thus, you can not construct  
a testme value supplying only one argument), whereas in

> # type testme2 = Foo2 of (int * int);;

it takes *one* tuple argument.

Regards,
Adam.

On Fri, 30 May 2008 00:23:40 +0200, Michael Vanier  
<mvanier@cs.caltech.edu> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I got bitten by a simple syntax problem:
>
> # let a = (1, 2);;
> val a : int * int = (1, 2)
> # type testme = Foo of int * int;;
> type testme = Foo of int * int
> # Foo a;;
> The constructor Foo expects 2 argument(s),
> but is here applied to 1 argument(s)
> # Foo (1, 2);;
> - : testme = Foo (1, 2)
> # type testme2 = Foo2 of (int * int);;
> type testme2 = Foo2 of (int * int)
> # Foo2 a;;
> - : testme2 = Foo2 (1, 2)
>
> Why does the compiler treat int * int and (int * int) in type  
> definitions so differently?  Is it to give clearer error messages in the  
> typical case?
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs