Jim Farrand écrit/writes [06/10/2009 15:14] :
> David Allsopp wrote:
> 
>> I think it would be possible to simulate the SML behaviour in OCaml
>> using camlp4 (if you assume that for [type foo = Bar of int] that
>> future unbound references to [bar] are interpreted as [fun x -> bar x]
>> instead of an error)
> 
> I believe this is already the behaviour under the revised syntax,

No it is not:

# type t = [ C of int and int ];
type t = [ C of int and int ]
# C;
Error: The constructor C expects 2 argument(s),
       but is here applied to 0 argument(s)


-- Michel Mauny