Yes, I agree it's useful , and that's why I wrote hundreds of thousands of lines of code in syntactic meta-programming (camlp4, fan, ppx)But in the end of day, the conclusion is the cost is just so huge that it should not be widely used, at least , it should not be *leaked* to end users. ( I remember I had a conversation with the original maintainer of camlp4, Nicolas, about 5 years ago, he had similar ideas with me)
----- Original Message -----
From: Serge Sivkov <ssp.mryau@gmail.com>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
At: 22-Apr-2017 08:49:40Hence, my two cents: PPX has problems in cross-compilation use cases, but I suppose something like new tag in META can reslove this issue.As for me, just ppx_deriving* by whitequark is yet one example of usefullness of PPX.WBR, ssp2017-04-22 5:10 GMT+06:00 Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias <e@x80.org>:"Hongbo Zhang (BLOOMBERG/ 731 LEX)" <hzhang295@bloomberg.net> writes:
> Yes, that's exactly what I suggested in the beginning!
Maybe I interpret the word "harmful" differently, but IMVHO I have to
strongly disagree with your choice of subject in the original mail.
Not only PPX has not been harmful for me, but it has been a life-saver
tool that has enabled significant progress towards more productive
research.
"Hongbo Zhang (BLOOMBERG/ 731 LEX)" <hzhang295@bloomberg.net> writes:
> calling it 'madness' is disrespectful
Personally, I fully subscribe Yaron's message and I see nothing
disrespectful in suggesting that abandoning syntactic abstractions is a
very bad idea.
You wrote:
"the OCaml library developer should avoid PPX as much as you can",
but if you meant:
"PPX seems quite unstable these days, I wonder how could we improve
long-term stability?"
I'd have to admit that message didn't reach to me.
Best regards!
Emilio
--
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives:
https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs