"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