[wg-camlp4] Request for feedback
alain.frisch at lexifi.com
Fri Mar 15 13:51:26 GMT 2013
> 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 = ...".
More information about the wg-camlp4