[wg-camlp4] A new branch to experiment with extension points

[Mark Shinwell]

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.

+1.

Two comments on the suggestions from Alain's mail:

1. If possible, I'd rather see one new syntactic form, rather than
three.

2. The syntax seems kind of cryptic to me.  I wonder if we could find
something more accessible without being overly verbose.

Mark