Re: [Caml-list] Working Group: the future of syntax extensions in OCaml, after camlp4

[Alain Frisch <alain@frisch.fr>]

On 01/24/2013 05:16 PM, rixed@happyleptic.org wrote:
> Are we interrested here striclty in _pre_processing or is runtime code
> generation also on topic?

Runtime code generation, and meta-programming a la MetaOCaml are indeed 
quite a different story, and they are not specifically in the scope of 
the working group.  I can imagine that some outcomes of this 
de-camlp4-ifcation might benefit to such projects, though.  For 
instance, a more liberal concrete syntax (with attributes/quotations) 
might allow, say,  MetaOCaml, to use directly the official parser, thus 
avoiding problems related to the fact that it currently needs a custom 
parser. For instance, I guess that camlp4 extensions cannot be directly 
used by MetaOCaml users (except if someone decided to port Camlp4 to 
MetaOCaml).  Discussions related to these syntactic aspects are very 
much welcome in the new mailing list.


Alain