Skip to content

Release ppxlib and ppxlib-tools 0.38.0#29563

Open
NathanReb wants to merge 1 commit intoocaml:masterfrom
NathanReb:release-ppxlib-0.38.0
Open

Release ppxlib and ppxlib-tools 0.38.0#29563
NathanReb wants to merge 1 commit intoocaml:masterfrom
NathanReb:release-ppxlib-0.38.0

Conversation

@NathanReb
Copy link
Contributor

@NathanReb NathanReb commented Mar 19, 2026

Changes:

@NathanReb
Copy link
Contributor Author

As usual, starting with a draft to get opam-ci's feedback!

@NathanReb
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jmid
Copy link
Member

jmid commented Mar 19, 2026

It's this one: #28952

CHANGES:

- Add support for OCaml 5.5 (ocaml-ppx/ppxlib#622, @patricoferris, @NathanReb)

- Add support for OCaml 5.4 bivariant type parameters, they can now be used
  alongside ppx-es. (ocaml-ppx/ppxlib#629, @NathanReb)

- Add `Attribute.Floating.declare_with_attr_loc` and `.declare_with_name_loc`,
  by analogy to the same functions at top level of `Attribute`. (ocaml-ppx/ppxlib#631, @ceastlund)

- Migrate `Ptyp_open` nodes using an extension point (ocaml-ppx/ppxlib#625, @patricoferris)

- Add Ast_builder and Ast_pattern utilities to manipulate encoded
  effect patterns (ocaml-ppx/ppxlib#624, @NathanReb)

- Fix a bug where ppat_effects would be encoded/decoded instead of copied by
  the 5.4 <-> 5.3 migrations (ocaml-ppx/ppxlib#624, @NathanReb)

- Fix infinite loop when duplicate attributes are present, raising
  an error instead (ocaml-ppx/ppxlib#613, @ceastlund, @patricoferris)
- Ignore extensions inside attributes for the unused extension check
  (ocaml-ppx/ppxlib#616, @Skepfyr)
- Fix a bug that inserted `Location.none` into `Longident`s when using OCaml
  5.4 and above (ocaml-ppx/ppxlib#619, @patricoferris)

- Add support for OCaml 5.4 labeled tuples, they can now be used alongside
  ppx-es. Also adds Ast_builder and Ast_pattern utilities to manipulate them.
  (ocaml-ppx/ppxlib#607, @NathanReb)
@NathanReb NathanReb force-pushed the release-ppxlib-0.38.0 branch from 387e2f5 to 6185871 Compare March 20, 2026 10:09
@NathanReb NathanReb marked this pull request as ready for review March 20, 2026 10:43
@NathanReb
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think this should be good to go! I didn't really expect any breakage to begin with.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants