Well, it opens up the entire issue of dependence on typechecking order and reification. Other things being equal, simple is good... Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: Richard Eisenberg [mailto:eir@cis.upenn.edu] | Sent: 18 April 2016 14:36 | To: Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj@microsoft.com> | Cc: Boespflug, Mathieu <m@tweag.io>; mainland@drexel.edu; Manuel M T | Chakravarty <chak@justtesting.org>; ghc-devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org> | Subject: Re: Should TH TExp be able use the Q monad | | | On Apr 18, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj@microsoft.com> | wrote: | > | > My instinct is to make it less expressive, though, and only allow | (TExp t) as the argument of $$. | > | > Does anyone care either way? I suppose we'd better open a ticket | for this. | | I don't see any harm that is introduced by having access to the Q | monad. As you say, as long as we can create only well-typed TExps, it | doesn't seem to matter what information we have access to on the way. | In other words: what's the gain by reducing expressiveness here? | | Richard