From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id QAA05436 for caml-redistribution; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 16:54:17 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA26982 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:54:02 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from margaux.inria.fr (margaux.inria.fr [128.93.8.2])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA29041;
	Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:53:59 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from maranget@localhost) by margaux.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id JAA09416; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:53:58 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Luc Maranget <Luc.Maranget@inria.fr>
Message-Id: <199909100753.JAA09416@margaux.inria.fr>
Subject: Re: Report a missing match
In-Reply-To: <39ADCF833E74D111A2D700805F1951EF1801418B@RED-MSG-06> from Don Syme at "Sep 9, 99 09:12:37 am"
To: dsyme@microsoft.com (Don Syme)
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:53:58 +0200 (MET DST)
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: weis

> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> It would be very helpful for me if the Caml compiler could report at least
> one missing match case when it says a match is non-exhaustive.  Is this
> feasible to implement fairly painlessly?  When working with very large
> datatypes, e.g. 100 constructors, it's very hard to know which case has been
> missed...
> 
> Thanks,
> Don
> 

Hi,

Conceptually, this is not that difficult to do, since the compiler look for
non-exhautive matches by enumerating possible non-matching values.

In practice, I have to see a little and have no time for that now...

I put this on a personnal TODO list.


--Luc Maranget