Re: [Caml-list] META file standards for ppx extensions

[Dario Teixeira <dario.teixeira@nleyten.com>]

Hi,

> I'm not fond of b). ppx_deriving et ppx_import don't follow
> this scheme, and that's rather understandable given the absence
> of runtime library.

Well, if the most popular ppx extensions don't have a runtime
library, this is an argument in favour of the alternative scheme
of declaring the ppx at the top-level of the META file, and the
runtime as a 'lib' or 'runtime' sub-package where applicable.
Personally, I don't think this argument is strong enough to tip
the balance, and I still favour the original scheme I proposed,
but I'm not very adamant about it.

*However*, regardless of what scheme is adopted, can we at least
agree on the need for it to be uniformly applied in the ecosystem?
I think the worst path is the one we're currently following, where
each ppx extension does as it pleases.


> Otherwise yes. lwt, js_of_ocaml follow that and it was widely
> adopted for camlp4, so it shouldn't be an issue.

Well, newcomers to OCaml will not recall this, but we had a similar
discussion some years ago about Camlp4.  At the time there was no
'syntax' standard, and most Camlp4 extensions were not even well
integrated with findlib.  I think we can all agree that using Camlp4
extensions became much easier and saner after that standard was
adopted by the community.

Best regards,
Dario Teixeira