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

[Alain Frisch]

On 01/31/2013 12:48 PM, Leo White wrote:
>> >> and << are really not keywords of OCaml, and I wouldn't be
>> surprised they are actually used as operators.  I prefer breaking
>> compatibility with camlp4 than with OCaml.
>
> Thinking about it "<:" is not entirely unproblematic. Since "[<" is a
> single token, [<:foo< .. >>] would be awkward for the lexer.
>
> Even if we abandon the camlp4 syntax for quotations

Hurrah :-)

>, I still think that
> {:lid {x{ string }x}} is too heavy and inflexible for traditional
> quotations. For example, a JSON quotation would look like:
>
> {:json {<{ {"streetAddress": "21 2nd Street"} }>}}

I would write this:

(:json {{ {"streetAddress": "21 2nd Street"} }})

And if we keep the "end marker" in the AST, this could be:

{json{ {"streetAddress": "21 2nd Street"} }json}


But maybe we should take a step back, and really ask ourselves why we 
should use concrete JSON syntax here.  Other possibilities:


1. Write the JSON AST directly as regular OCaml code:

  Json.(M["streetAdress", S "21 2snd Street"])

  (assuming module Json export constructors M and S.)

2. Use "parsed" OCaml syntax, with some -ppx filter mapping it to JSON AST:

  (:json { streetAddress: "21 2snd Street" })

(which would expand to the version above)


3. Use a JSON parser (if we don't need "anti-quotations"):

   parse_json "{\"streetAddress\": \"21 2nd Street\"}"

   or:

   parse_json {{ {"streetAddress: "21 2nd Street"} }}


 From all the uses of Camlp4 I've seen listed since the beginning of 
this discussion, I can imagine using at some point almost each of them, 
except those which are basically "just" about quoting fragments of 
external languages in their native syntax.  I just don't see the real 
benefits.

It would be useful to get feedback from users: do people actually use 
pa_tyxml, pa_json, etc, and do they consider this is really better than 
proposed alternatives?


Alain