transform `foo bla;` into `let () = ...` rather than `let _ = ...`
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- OCaml
- Stars
- 10.3k
- Forks
- 438
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
From gitter:
do you mean by default when you do
expr ; expr? If so, then I believe you can accomplish that with the compiler flag called "strict sequence" iirc.
using let () = foo bla warns when the returned value of foo bla isn't unit. Using let _ = foo bla discards the return value, which might not be intended.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by tracing the compiler entry point that handles expr ; expr and compare how it emits let () = ... versus let _ = .... Check the existing sequence-expression tests, then confirm that the generated form preserves the warning for non-unit results without changing unrelated transformations.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- ocaml
- Domain
- compilers
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 38/100