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
_______________________________________________
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
