On 26 Aug 2009, at 22:09, Jon Harrop wrote: >> That is true in principle, but integrating Lisp-style macros and >> compulsory static typing (as opposed to optional type hints) into the >> same language does require some careful thought. I haven't seen >> such a >> combination yet... > > I'm not sure what you regard as "Lisp-style" macros but you may be > interested > in OCaml's untyped Camlp4 macros and Template Haskell's typed macros.
What I mean by Lisp-style macros is macros that are fully integrated into the language, and in particular that macros are implemented in the base language. This is not the case for Camlp4, which is a preprocessor that implements a macro language very different from OCaml itself. Template Haskell is in my opinion a nice example of the complexity that can result from making macros type-safe, though Haskell's non- trivial syntax also contributes to the complexity. Konrad. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
