On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:49 AM, David Teller <David.Teller@univ-orleans.fr>
wrote:

>
> camlp5... We're also not discussing original vs. revised syntax vs. twt
> [yet], although if you consider that some extension would be much more
> useful if rendered compatible with one of these syntaxes, please mention
> it.


FWIW, most quickie syntactic sugar extensions that are confined to single
lines of code work seamlessly with twt. I use pa_compr all the time, for
example. I think open_in and try...finally are currently problematic, but if
they do become some kind of de facto standard then I would have no problem
hacking them into this already-badly-hacked preprocessor. In the future,
someone needs to do twt right; it works well enough for me right now that I
have no motivation to do so.

-Mike