Jon Harrop wrote:
> So the translation from MetaOCaml to OCaml is not obvious at all.
>
> This begs the question: could another formulation of MetaOCaml avoid these 
> complications without losing expressiveness?
>   
No.  See some of the early papers of Taha and papers from Sheard around 
the same time. 

BTW, F#'s metaprogramming features are much much less powerful than 
metaocaml's.  We tried to use them to generalize some previous work I 
(with some other colleagues) had done in metaocaml, but couldn't.  
Essentially, F#'s splices are first-order only.

Jacques