]> Dan Grossman wrote: > >> Second, it would also be nice not to have "the concept of constructor >> arity", and treat the code below as correct: >> >> type t = A of int * int >> let _ = match A (17, 0) with >> A z -> match z with (x, y) -> () > > Works with type t = A of (int * int). You put the parens in. So the > choice is yours. The advantage of leaving them out is usually performance. That is not true. It would be quite trivial for the compiler to translate A z -> e into the equivalent of A(z1,z2) -> let z = (z1,z2) in e without affecting performance of other programs in any way. Likewise, A z could be transformed into let (z1,z2) = z in A(z1,z2) instead of rejecting it. OTOH, your workaround certainly decreases performance for type t, as other pointed out. -- Andreas Rossberg, rossberg@ps.uni-sb.de "Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac Man affected us as kids, we would all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills, and listening to repetitive electronic music." - Kristian Wilson, Nintendo Inc. ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners