[wg-camlp4] Meta Programming from the view of the implementaion

[Leo White]

>Do you really mean using a single > as the closing delimiter in the 
>first case? 

You're right that should really be ">>".

>
> >> is also a valid binary operator, by the way.
>

Yes, but it is also listed as a keyword, so it is probably fine to 
appropriate it.

>I'd rather drop compatibility with camlp4, and prefer characters which 
>are already used as delimiters by OCaml and not binary operators.  If we 
>drop compatibility with camlp4, there is no reason to prefer:
>
>  <: lid xx< ... >xx>
>
>over, say:
>
>  (:lid {xx{ ... }xx})

I think that I prefer <: .. >> in part because it is not already used as a 
delimiter (at least not for expressions). I think that these things should 
stand out. I also think that, if there are no real issues with it, we 
should be compatible with camlp4.