[wg-camlp4] A new branch to experiment with extension points
Alain Frisch
alain.frisch at lexifi.com
Fri Mar 1 08:52:04 GMT 2013
On 03/01/2013 09:08 AM, Mark Shinwell wrote:
> 1. If possible, I'd rather see one new syntactic form, rather than
> three.
Can you elaborate?
The need for various syntaxes arise from:
- A distinction between attributes (meta-data which can be ignored by
the type-checker if they remain after -ppx rewriting) and extension
nodes (on which the type-checker must fail). Do you claim they should
be merged, or that we should somehow find a way to use a similar syntax
for both?
- The need for attributes/extension nodes on various syntactic
categories. For instance, one wants both attributes on type expressions
and on type declarations, which easily create conflicts in the grammar.
Do you think we should restrict where attributes/extension nodes are
allowed, or that we should find a uniform syntax for
attributes/extension nodes on all syntactic categories (with priority
rules)?
- The desire to have both prefix and postfix syntaxes for attributes.
This might be overkill, and if I had to choose, I'd pick a postfix
syntax (but there are probably use cases where prefix attributes would
look nicer).
Alain
More information about the wg-camlp4
mailing list