| > * If part of the solution here is to use typed splices, how do we get | > quasiquotation to be syntactic sugar for a *typed* splice? Do we want | > to be introducing a typed quasiquotation syntax, just like Geoff did | > for much of the rest of Template Haskell? | | Maybe. Quasiquotation sugar is very light: [blah|...|] is the same as | $(selector blah "...") where `selector` is the right record selector | depending on the splice context. Is it worth trying to expand | quasiquotation syntax to work with typed TH? I'm unconvinced it's worth | the bother. Also, note that doing [blah||...||] is not backward- | compatible, because that looks like an untyped quasiquote that begins | and ends with a vertical bar. The merit of a typed splice is that if you see $$(f [|| x ||]) and (f [|| x ||]) typechecks, then you know that the splice result will typecheck. You never have to look at the expansion of the splice. Nothing like that can be said about quasiquotes [flob| ...arbitrary string... |] We can't say "if ...arbitrary string.. typechecks then the quasiquote will typecheck. To put it another way, it's equivalent to $(getExprParser flob "...arby string....") and that typechecks trivially, but its expansion of course might not. So there is literally no point in thinking about typed-splices for quasiquotes. Simon