On 11/27/10 04:23, Julia Lawall wrote:
> In my case, I originally thought that the constructor should take an 
> argument, then changed my mind.  I would have hoped that OCaml would have 
> found the inconsistency.  That's what static typing is for.  Thus, I 
> find the change quite disappointing.

I also find the change uninspired.

> Perhaps it would have been nicer to have an option to allow the behavior 
> that is useful in the camlp4 case, rather than making it the default.

Could the warning be turned on by default in the next OCaml release, please?



Martin