On 31 January 2006 17:48, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 10:17:57AM -0000, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 30 January 2006 21:49, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
In the present case, people aren't (only) opposing the M-R out of principle, but because they actually use overloaded variable definitions and (at least sometimes) want to leave off the signature.
So I don't see how one could claim, as on the wiki, the warning "wouldn't happen much". I suspect it would happen, and annoy people, and defeat the reason that people want to remove the M-R.
The assertion that it "wouldn't happen much" is based on the observation earlier in this thread that it was actually difficult to write some code that illustrated the problem.
This indicates that the warning "wouldn't happen much" _when you want sharing_. But it would happen all the time when you don't want sharing, eg. in the case Malcolm Wallace just posted.
So you either add a type signature, or turn off the warning. What's the problem? I suspect you're saying that you don't want a warning by default, and you don't want the langage to recommend that compilers issue a warning by default, right? If so, your objection is duly noted and I'll add the point to the wiki. Cheers, Simon