Closed cmxog closed 2 years ago
I don't think there's a need to add a "deriving" annotation for that. It's easy enough to write by hand:
let t_of_sexp a_of_sexp sexp = { field = a_of_sexp sexp }
Adding more and more attributes for customizing derived sexps just complicates both the interface and the implementation of ppx_sexp_conv, so for things like this I'd rather not add them.
Would it be possible to derive
of_sexp
for:in such a way that instead of generating a representation of
r
form, it'd just use theof_exp
representation offield
?