On 13-03-2008, Eric Cooper <ecc@cmu.edu> wrote:
>> Topic for discussion: without prejudice for those cases where an
>> alternative name may be far more suitable, it would be nice if
>> packages of this type containing a single syntax extension were to
>> agree on a common name for the subpackage defining that extension.
>> Some possibilities are "extension", "pa", "pp", etc.
>
> If it doesn't break anything, I suggest "syntax".
>

What about "camlp4"/"camlp5" ? At least it will allow to make the
difference between the two.

Regards,
Sylvain Le Gall