Well, the discussion literally says, we don't understand tabulation, and it looks like nobody is using it, so let's just throw it away :)
We're using tabulation, and they are quite useful. Yep, I agree, that the interface for setting the marks is kind of awkward,
it would be nice if there would be a `pp_setup_tabs : _ formatter -> int list -> unit` function, that would push into the stack a new tabular box with
the specified tabulations.
What concerning your solution with the alignment, it is less general and doesn't work in our case. First of all, the pretty printing functions, that are printing
into the columns are not specified with `%s`, but with `%a` (e.g., address, memory string, assembly string). Second, the printing functions are not actually
defined in the same module. The tabs are initialized in the frontend, that defines it based on the architecture (address size, maximum length of instruction, etc),
and pretty printers are registered separately, and they just rely on a fact, that we have three columns, the first is for address, the second is for memory, then assembly, etc).
This design simplifies the actual instruction printers, by consolidating the common code in the formatter setup procedure.
So, it is still not clear to me, why the tabulations are wrong. If they do complicate the code base and raise the support cost, then it is understandable, why you would like to remove it
from the standard library. But in this case, it would be nice, to move this code out as a separate library, as just removing a feature, that was in the language for years (I would say even forever,
if we will start the history from caml-light), without providing any substitution is... not nice :)