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 SAA24230 for caml-redistribution; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 18:07:06 +0100 (MET) Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA29830 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:24:45 +0100 (MET) Received: from post.tepkom.ru (relay.tepkom.ru [195.9.240.162]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA07941; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:24:41 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (msk@localhost) by post.tepkom.ru (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA25586; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 16:24:49 +0300 Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 16:24:47 +0300 (MSK) From: Anton Moscal To: Xavier Leroy cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: Warnings in ocaml In-Reply-To: <19990222133655.46186@pauillac.inria.fr> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: weis On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Xavier Leroy wrote: > > I copied from SML and defined a procedure "ignore": > > so now I would write: > > ignore (f x y); ... > > I was considering adding this to the standard library, implemented in > such a way that no function call actually takes place. It seems to > strike a reasonable balance between the safety of the warning and the > inconvenience of writing "let _ = ..." Also it will be useful to produce warning when polymorphic comparison occurs. Two days ago I got significant speedup in my program by suppressing polymorphism. But I found it only by information from gprof. Anton Moscal.