[wg-camlp4] Request for feedback

[Alain Frisch]

Gabriel:
> But why do we have a heavier syntax for innocuous stuff, and an easy
> syntax for wild-semantics-change stuff? Would let at foo work as well?

Attributes takes an optional argument, i.e. you can write:

  let[@foo bla] x = ....

so we need some delimeters.  (Maybe we could have a lighter syntax for attributes without arguments.)

In the form "let%foo x = ...", the argument of the extension is "let x = ...".


-- Alain