[wg-camlp4] Request for feedback
lpw25 at cam.ac.uk
Fri Mar 15 13:53:06 GMT 2013
Gabriel Scherer <gabriel.scherer at gmail.com> writes:
> 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?
I think that is because "let at foo x = ..." doesn't annotate foo with much
information. The expected uses are more like:
let [@foo (*some information pretending to be an expression*)] x = ...
where obviously the hevier syntax is required.
More information about the wg-camlp4