Casey McCann wrote: > Not to speak for Jacques, :-) and then you followed that up with a post with which I fully agree.
Jacques > but my impression is that while TH itself is > typed--it's just more Haskell after all--it doesn't do much to prevent > you from generating code that is not well-typed. Or even well-formed, > for that matter; my initial attempts to learn how to use TH produced > quite a few "that's impossible!" errors from GHC (I do not think that > word means what it thinks it means). > > There's also type-level metaprogramming, as in e.g. HList, which is > almost completely untyped. I have some personal library code that > implements a simple meta-type system and it's a huge, horrid, painful > mess for something with an expressive power no better than System F. > > In contrast, MetaOCaml seems to be some variety of a multi-stage > system where metaprogramming blends smoothly into "regular" > programming with a single, consistent type ensuring type safety at all > points. > > - C. > _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
