From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dario.teixeira@nleyten.com>
X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDE567FCCB
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Wed,  8 Apr 2015 20:20:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  dario.teixeira@nleyten.com) identity=pra;
  client-ip=217.70.183.197;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="dario.teixeira@nleyten.com";
  x-sender="dario.teixeira@nleyten.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  dario.teixeira@nleyten.com) identity=mailfrom;
  client-ip=217.70.183.197;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="dario.teixeira@nleyten.com";
  x-sender="dario.teixeira@nleyten.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@relay5-d.mail.gandi.net) identity=helo;
  client-ip=217.70.183.197;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="dario.teixeira@nleyten.com";
  x-sender="postmaster@relay5-d.mail.gandi.net";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0D/AQBGcSVVnMW3Rtlcg1phgxDCMoUvgXo8EAEBAQEBAQERAQEBAQEGDQkJFC5BBYQDFVUhAiYCXxuIJgmmXo9VlmEEgSGRdYFFBZRsgieYQQKBc4IfgjJ/AQEB
X-IPAS-Result: A0D/AQBGcSVVnMW3Rtlcg1phgxDCMoUvgXo8EAEBAQEBAQERAQEBAQEGDQkJFC5BBYQDFVUhAiYCXxuIJgmmXo9VlmEEgSGRdYFFBZRsgieYQQKBc4IfgjJ/AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,545,1422918000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="132246248"
Received: from relay5-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.197])
  by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 08 Apr 2015 20:20:39 +0200
Received: from mfilter2-d.gandi.net (mfilter2-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.140])
	by relay5-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E55D641C04E
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Wed,  8 Apr 2015 20:20:38 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter2-d.gandi.net
Received: from relay5-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.197])
	by mfilter2-d.gandi.net (mfilter2-d.gandi.net [10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 2ALNeqHiLILQ for <caml-list@inria.fr>;
	Wed,  8 Apr 2015 20:20:37 +0200 (CEST)
X-Originating-IP: 10.58.1.142
Received: from webmail.gandi.net (unknown [10.58.1.142])
	(Authenticated sender: dario.teixeira@nleyten.com)
	by relay5-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9041A41C064
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Wed,  8 Apr 2015 20:20:37 +0200 (CEST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 19:20:37 +0100
From: Dario Teixeira <dario.teixeira@nleyten.com>
To: caml-list <caml-list@inria.fr>
Message-ID: <2f9c74beafcf41f3ab30324fb1ece739@nleyten.com>
X-Sender: dario.teixeira@nleyten.com
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.9.5
Subject: [Caml-list] META file standards for ppx extensions

Hi,

I think we need to standardise the naming and structure of META
files associated with ppx extensions.  Case in point: I was hoping
to start using sedlex instead of ulex, because the latter has been
deprecated for a while now and all the cool kids are switching to
the former.  However, sedlex currently ships with a broken META
file that severely restricts its usefulness [1].  Therefore, in
order to avoid similar problems with other ppx extensions and to
foster some uniformity in the ecosystem, here's what I suggest:

a) Suppose you have a ppx extension called 'foobar' that relies
    on a runtime library foobar.cma (and native code counterparts,
    which I'll omit from now on).  The top-level declarations in
    foobar's META should reference foobar.cma, but should *not*
    include a ppx declaration.  The ppx declaration should be
    part of a 'ppx' sub-package.

b) If the ppx extension 'foobar' does not have a runtime library,
    then the top-level declarations in the META file should consist
    only of generic version and description information.  The actual
    ppx declaration should be part of a 'ppx' sub-package, as in a).

There is obviously an alternative approach where the ppx invocations
are located at the top-level and any potential runtime libraries
are moved into a 'lib' sub-package.  I prefer the approach outlined
above, however, as it makes ppx invocations explicit and follows the
'syntax' sub-package tradition from Camlp4's glory days.

Thoughts or suggestions?

Best regards,
Dario Teixeira

[1] https://github.com/alainfrisch/sedlex/issues/22