Sonja Heinze

> Hi @pitag-ha, Yes I have Ocaml up and running on my computer. I followed [this](https://v3.ocaml.org/docs/up-and-running) to achieve that. Cool! So yes: perfect to start working on an issue now!...

Cool. Don't hesitate to ask, if you have any questions.

Hi @desirekaleba, Yes, the deriver can be installed via opam: ``` opam install ppx_deriving_yaml ``` Also, I was just about to explain you how to load the deriver into the...

Thanks a lot for your quick and nice answer @bn-d! > Where can I read more about this Ppxlib.Deriving standard derivers project? You can have a look at the [README...

Thanks for your input! And sorry for the delay in answering. Re `ppx_make` vs `ppx_deriving.make` unit convention in the context of private types: >The ppx_deriving.make code will break but the...

Ooh, good point! I hadn't even noticed that the two parameters have the same name. So yes, you've convinced me that the `split` feature isn't a hygienic approach. Thanks!

_Update_: Ignore this comment :) As pointed out below, it's wrong. Thanks for the fix, @kit-ty-kate! I was thinking if it would make sense to add a `ppxlib < 0.23.0`...

Oh ok, thanks for pointing that out @kit-ty-kate, sorry for that!

The ppxlib version @kit-ty-kate has mentioned above 0.23.0 [has been released](https://github.com/ocaml-ppx/ppxlib/releases/tag/0.23.0) now. So for this metaquot extension to stay compatible with new ppxlib versions, it would be great to address...

Thanks for the context and history on this, that's very interesting! I understand far better now why this metaquot co-exists with ppxlib.metaquot. > The most interesting thing I see in...