[wg-camlp4] Request for feedback

Gabriel Scherer gabriel.scherer at gmail.com
Thu Mar 7 16:23:29 GMT 2013

I understood the syntactic constructs, but it really help to see them
used in realistic cases.
I actually find those examples quite impressive:
- the [@lwt] ones are good because you managed to give a clean
semantics to the relevant syntactic exceptions.
- I didn't except the quotation-using ones to work that well either

I'm wondering how much I should trust them :p Have you actually tried
to parse the most daring ones with your parser? If you have a
testsuite, it may be interesting to add them to it.

While I admire the cleverness of using the fact that attributes are
OCaml syntax to get the "quotation" use cases for free, it also gives
me mixed feelings:
- I'm not sure how robust it is to future design changes
- For multi-line quotations, I would appreciate a slightly more
explicit syntax (possibly the symmetric delimiter to help users see
where the quotation end).

No precise idea on this front, but that's still something to think about.

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Alain Frisch <alain.frisch at lexifi.com> wrote:
> On 03/07/2013 03:43 PM, Gabriel Scherer wrote:
>> I think it would be useful to see concrete example use cases, to get a
>> better feel of the concrete syntax choices.
>> Could you go over some of the examples in
>> https://github.com/gasche/ocaml-syntax-extension-discussion/wiki/Use-Cases
>> , and transcode the ones that are reachable through such annotations
>> in your current syntax?
> Good suggestion.  I've committed a list of examples at the end of:
> http://caml.inria.fr/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/ocaml/branches/extension_points/experimental/frisch/extension_points.txt?view=markup
> As a small change, the "id" of attributes and extension nodes can now be
> uppercase identifiers (and later, keywords will also be accepted). Should we
> accept qualified identifiers as well?
> Alain

More information about the wg-camlp4 mailing list