From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E40D7FCCB for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 21:59:24 +0200 (CEST) Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of dario.teixeira@nleyten.com) identity=pra; client-ip=217.70.183.198; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="dario.teixeira@nleyten.com"; x-sender="dario.teixeira@nleyten.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of dario.teixeira@nleyten.com) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=217.70.183.198; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="dario.teixeira@nleyten.com"; x-sender="dario.teixeira@nleyten.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@relay6-d.mail.gandi.net) identity=helo; client-ip=217.70.183.198; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="dario.teixeira@nleyten.com"; x-sender="postmaster@relay6-d.mail.gandi.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0D/AQDDhyVVnMa3RtlchDuDEMgvAoEsPBABAQEBAQEBEQEBAQEBBg0JCRQuQQWDWgEBAwEOFRUtGQsEBxoCJgICVyEMiA4MtkCWeoEhigqFAxaCUoFFBa9UAoQSgjJ/AQEB X-IPAS-Result: A0D/AQDDhyVVnMa3RtlchDuDEMgvAoEsPBABAQEBAQEBEQEBAQEBBg0JCRQuQQWDWgEBAwEOFRUtGQsEBxoCJgICVyEMiA4MtkCWeoEhigqFAxaCUoFFBa9UAoQSgjJ/AQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,545,1422918000"; d="scan'208";a="108884536" Received: from relay6-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.198]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 08 Apr 2015 21:59:23 +0200 Received: from mfilter9-d.gandi.net (mfilter9-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.138]) by relay6-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83AD5FB88B for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 21:59:23 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter9-d.gandi.net Received: from relay6-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.198]) by mfilter9-d.gandi.net (mfilter9-d.gandi.net [10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FT2ndpxP4Xve for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 21:59:22 +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 relay6-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 33A96FB883 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 21:59:22 +0200 (CEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 20:59:22 +0100 From: Dario Teixeira To: caml-list@inria.fr In-Reply-To: <55257AAD.6030004@zoho.com> References: <2f9c74beafcf41f3ab30324fb1ece739@nleyten.com> <55257AAD.6030004@zoho.com> Message-ID: <5297cdaceccd6db2a60700bf686ccfb7@nleyten.com> X-Sender: dario.teixeira@nleyten.com User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.9.5 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] META file standards for ppx extensions 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