On 5/30/12 9:37 AM, Dan Bensen wrote:
>
> > > I don't think it's good to downplay camlp4.
> > > we need more documentation and more tests.
>
> > (The new) Camlp4 has been here for several years.
> > Documentation and tests are still lagging behind.
>
> Is it possible for Inria or someone else to provide
> funding for that?  I would like to help out starting
> sometime in the summer.
>
Actually I am writing a book about the internal part of camlp4 (100~200 
pages),
but nobody seems to care about it.
> > the most common uses of camlp4 might be based on a much
> > simpler approach ... Coq is one of the few examples of
> > a big project that relies on other aspects of camlp4
>
> Why not focus on optimizing new lightweight tools for
> small problems and keep camlp4 for big ones?  It wouldn't
> be so bad if it were documented better.
I think it's a good idea to build simple tools on top of existing more 
powerful tools instead of dropping the latter.