[wg-camlp4] Request for feedback

[Gabriel Scherer]

I suspect we could get some value, for example, of

  let at nowarn [x;y;z] = List.map normalize [x;y;z]

(More generally I've been thinking about compiler pragmas, and those
often don't need arguments.)

I think the answer is yes, but I don't quite remember: if let[@foo
bar] .. = ... in .. is accepted, do we also allow let[%foo bar] ... in
... as a shortcut for [%foo bar (let .. in ...)]?

On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Leo White <lpw25 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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.