[wg-camlp4] Planning for the different syntax extensions

[Alain Frisch]

On 01/28/2013 03:05 PM, Yaron Minsky wrote:
> I'm wondering if it would be worth putting up a page on a wiki
> somewhere where we can organize our understanding of how different
> syntax extensions could be handled in a -ppx world?  It might be nice
> to have this include code-examples of ways in which syntax would have
> to change to make these work.

I like this suggestion, but I propose to wait a little bit.  We can 
discuss on this mailing list about possible -ppx replacement for 
different camlp4 extensions, and then collect the information later, 
when some consensus is reached.

> Beyond that, what problems do we need to solve on this WG?  My mental
> to-do list is something like:
>
> - Reach a consensus that a -ppx based solution is a good way to
>    replace camlp4 as a required part of the OCaml toolchain.
>
> - Enumerate the major current syntax extensions, and for each one,
>    determine how this could be handled in a -ppx world
>
> - Figure out what additional syntax (annotations and the like) would
>    need to be supported to make -ppx be able to handle the vast
>    majority of uses.
>
> - Settle on a proposed concrete syntax for the above.
>
> Is that roughly what we should be aiming to do?

Yes.  See also the list of tasks in the email where I announced the 
creation of this working group ( 
http://lists.ocaml.org/pipermail/wg-camlp4/2013-January/000000.html ). 
The first important task, for me, is to get an idea of the most 
important uses of camlp4 and refine the intended scope of -ppx.

Alain