Re: [Caml-list] [ANN] ppx_monadic.1.0.2, ppx for monadic do, pattern

[Drup <drupyog+caml@zoho.com>]

> I can appreciate that authors of tools that requires special syntactic 
> support would love to have their new forms look completely native to 
> users, but the counter-argument can be made that keeping an explicit 
> syntax (through the '%' character) for features that are not part of 
> the official language is a good property. (Camlp4/campl5 are still 
> available for people who want to play with the concrete syntax.)

I personally like the explicitness of the syntax a lot. The only issue 
in OCaml currently is that, given the need for retro compatibility, it 
goes sometimes against the terseness. For example the impossibility to 
do " x@foo" instead of "x[@foo]". That's unavoidable, though.

This is, by the way, a point I dislike a lot with ppx_monadic. It abuses 
the native syntax in completely alien ways and without annotations.

I like ppx_monad's syntax quite better due to the fact that it's always 
explicitly a ppx (thanks to %monad) and do not overload the "do_" 
identifier.