[wg-camlp4] Request for feedback

[Leo White]

Gabriel Scherer <gabriel.scherer at gmail.com> writes:

> But why do we have a heavier syntax for innocuous stuff, and an easy
> syntax for wild-semantics-change stuff? Would let at foo work as well?
>

I think that is because "let at foo x = ..." doesn't annotate foo with much
information. The expected uses are more like:

    let [@foo (*some information pretending to be an expression*)] x = ...

where obviously the hevier syntax is required.