[wg-camlp4] A new branch to experiment with extension points
mshinwell at janestreet.com
Fri Mar 1 08:08:27 GMT 2013
On 1 March 2013 04:54, Yaron Minsky <yminsky at janestreet.com> wrote:
> Is there any hope of keeping the "with" syntax for type definitions
> that type-conv uses? There's quite a bit of code that depends on it,
> and there seems at least some utility in keeping it.
Two comments on the suggestions from Alain's mail:
1. If possible, I'd rather see one new syntactic form, rather than
2. The syntax seems kind of cryptic to me. I wonder if we could find
something more accessible without being overly verbose.
More information about the wg-camlp4