On 12/11/2011 12:34 AM, Gabriel Scherer wrote:
A summary to this lengthy mail:
(1) Why type-enriched Camlp4 is an unreasonable idea
(2) We should extract the typedtree; why it's hard
(3) A fictional narrative of the camlp4/camlp5 history
(4) Why you don't want to become Camlp4 maintainer
(5)
And Xavier's mail suggests that camlp4 is a maintenance burden for the OCaml
team.
Why is it such a bad idea to drop camlp4 out of the distribution, and
just let camlp5 live?
First of all, I don't have a strong opinion here: I just voiced
doubt. My reasoning for going so goes along two lines
Many people are still frustrated with the camlp4/p5 situation. IMHO, we
should give up on camlp4 inside the distribution, and only implement a
few of its features in the regular parser:
- Antiquotation syntax (i.e. expressions) because this makes it
very easy to incorporate foreign syntax
Gerd, you are summing up in a few paragraphs what I tried to say in a few pages.
There are other parts of Camlp4 that I would also welcome:
- the OCaml quotation parsers that reads quoted OCaml expression (and
patterns) and translate them to their ASTs (as an OCaml expression);
this makes
On 12/11/2011 12:34 AM, Gabriel Scherer wrote:
the Coq
team which has user-defined notations using Camlp4 and, huh, I really
don't want to know the details
My understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that Coq uses
camlp{4,5} only as an extensible parser library in order to parse its
Le 11/12/2011 14:27, Alain Frisch a écrit :
My understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that Coq uses
camlp{4,5} only as an extensible parser library in order to parse its
own language (which can be extended with user-defined notations). In
particular, Coq does not use the following
Jérémie Dimino jere...@dimino.org writes:
Le samedi 10 décembre 2011 à 19:10 +, Wojciech Meyer a écrit :
I'm aware that these are huge changes to Camlp4, but it would make
meta programming more powerful and push Camlp4 to the next level.
Sure. But it seems that the next version of OCaml
A summary to this lengthy mail:
(1) Why type-enriched Camlp4 is an unreasonable idea
(2) We should extract the typedtree; why it's hard
(3) A fictional narrative of the camlp4/camlp5 history
(4) Why you don't want to become Camlp4 maintainer
(5) How we could try not to use Camlp4 in the future
(6)
