From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <alain@frisch.fr>
X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5F367EEAF
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:08:58 +0100 (CET)
Received-SPF: None (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  alain@frisch.fr) identity=pra; client-ip=193.252.23.215;
  receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="alain@frisch.fr"; x-sender="alain@frisch.fr";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  alain@frisch.fr) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=193.252.23.215;
  receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="alain@frisch.fr"; x-sender="alain@frisch.fr";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@msa.smtpout.orange.fr) identity=helo;
  client-ip=193.252.23.215;
  receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="alain@frisch.fr";
  x-sender="postmaster@msa.smtpout.orange.fr";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmEAAMVoAVHB/BfXkWdsb2JhbABEgzi7Jg4BAQEBCQsLBxQDJIIeAQEFODYKARALGAkWDwkDAgECAUUTAQUCAQGIGr4ijVKDKQOWDIVrjVY
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,530,1355094000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="169536146"
Received: from msa06.smtpout.orange.fr (HELO msa.smtpout.orange.fr) ([193.252.23.215])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2013 18:08:58 +0100
Received: from [192.168.1.105] ([90.2.82.74])
	by mwinf5d21 with ME
	id rt8x1k00L1cCdve03t8xFf; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:08:57 +0100
Message-ID: <51016AAB.8070403@frisch.fr>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:08:59 +0100
From: Alain Frisch <alain@frisch.fr>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rixed@happyleptic.org
CC: caml-list <caml-list@inria.fr>
References: <510145A5.6030807@frisch.fr> <20130124161649.GB2290@securactive.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20130124161649.GB2290@securactive.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Working Group: the future of syntax extensions in
 OCaml, after camlp4

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