[wg-camlp4] Request for feedback
alain.frisch at lexifi.com
Thu Mar 14 11:34:04 GMT 2013
On 03/14/2013 12:00 PM, Leo White wrote:
> To be honest I am (cautiously) ok with "let%lwt x = ...".
If we only support the special form for "let", I agree it would make
sense to make "let%ext" a single token.
I don't have a strong opinion about it, but if we special-case the
treatment of the "let" binding, maybe it is worth introducing a custom
kind of extension point for this construction, like supporting an
arbitrary sequence of symbol characters:
[%%lwt let suffix = "**"]
[%%lazy let suffix = "..."]
let** x1 = e1 in
let** x2 = e2 in
let... rec x = button "X" ~click:(fun () -> y # set_text "X")
and y = button "Y" ~click:(fun () -> x # set_text "Y")
hbox [x; y]
> Note that for "let" the trade-off is potentially much worse:
It makes sense.
What do other people on the list think?
- Should we support a compact syntax for extension nodes on all
constructions starting with a keyword or delimiter (and if so, should
this become the only syntax for extension nodes)?
- If not, should be do it for the (local) let-binding only? Or, if we
special-case this construction, should we do something different for it
altogether (arbitrary symbol characters)?
More information about the wg-camlp4