# [MLton] -warn-unused true and MLton

**Stephen Weeks
**
MLton@mlton.org

*Wed, 18 Feb 2004 05:41:18 -0800*

>* We could use the following idiom:
*>*
*>* (f x; e) ==> let val () = ignore (f x)
*>* in e
*>* end
*>*
*>* although then I don't see it being much better than
*>*
*>* (f x; e) ==> (ignore (f x); e)
*>*
*>* and also a little more visually cluttered.
*
I completely agree. I much prefer "(ignore (f x); e)". I was
thinking of the case where there are several expressions in sequence,
only some of which return unit. When translating that to a let, it
would be nice to write "val ()" for the ones that return unit and "val
_" for the ones that don't.