Fare wrote:

> Isn't camlp4 the obvious solution to this problem?
> Format strings could "just" be processed at compile-time
> by a camlp4 extension that produces a Danvy-style encoding
> out of the format string.

Sounds reasonable, except I would perhaps prefer to expose the
underlying combinators everywhere (rather than provide syntactic
sugar for the simple cases and require direct use of combinators
in more complex cases, leading to two apparently unrelated
languages).

-- 
François Pottier
Francois.Pottier@inria.fr
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~fpottier/
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners