`open' construct for ATD? about atd HOT 1 OPEN

Of course the representation of ATD modules in the target language is by construction language dependent, but this is precisely why I feel ATD needs its own syntax to represent dependencies between ATD source file.

One of the great benefits of ATD is that it enables a developer to design a type hierarchy in a vacuum, without reference to any language. In principle, this type hierarchy corresponds to set of validation criteria for JSON objects. Even if ATD had no support for the language I was working in (say PHP) I could still conceivably use it generate a document validator (in Ocaml). Whereas, with the present mechanism based on abstract ATD type declarations with <ocaml ...> annotations, I can construct the validator, but in principle my type hierarchy is undefined. It might be more of a philosophical distinction than a pragmatic one, but being the discriminating hacker that I am, I care about such distinctions.

from atd.