I wonder whether a system based on extensions [%u "..."] rather than
attributes "..." [@u] could be easier to extend in the future. For example,
you might want to introduce a different annotation `u16` that generates an
integer array representing an utf16-encoded literal (or an abstract type of
your liking, but then not in pattern position). Having an annotation change
the type of the code would not be very nice.

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Daniel Bünzli <daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> If you ever wanted to have that *safely* you may want to checkout this
> experimental ppx:
>
> https://github.com/dbuenzli/ppx_utf8_lit
>
> Here's the design rationale:
>
> https://github.com/dbuenzli/ppx_utf8_lit#rationale
>
> Feedback welcome,
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>