Catherine
Catherine
Unfortunately I haven't touched any of my OCaml code in... probably close to two years at this point. Been doing other things.
No, there isn't any update on this. Why would you expect any? I no longer work on any of this code myself.
> We restore the Ppx_deriving as it was before #123, i.e. using the Ast from the compiler with some cppo to keep it working with several versions of the compiler....
> Do you agree that Ppx_deriving should be renamed Ppx_deriving_405 thought? If not, the upgrade story has to be different. If we go ahead with two passes, then yes. Since...
Then I don't understand how is this sufficient...
Glossing over some other details that I think are troublesome, this still means that leftover derivers will be ignored. This is unacceptable, and ppx_deriving was specifically designed in a way...
(The reason this is unacceptable is, of course, you can use `[@@deriving]` in a `.mli`, and if there's some sort of build system mishap, you could have your public interface...
Okay, I'll need to spend some more time looking into this design.
@diml We've already considered and rejected this option back when 4.03 came out.
@diml This is an excellent idea. Please keep me updated. I'm not quite sure about integrating the other API-breaking changes in ppx_deriving now though, since breaking the API in a...