Hence, 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, ssp

2017-04-22 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
>