Dear all, George and I have been discussing this. We very much support the idea of allowing QQ for top-level definitions. Additionally, we think QQ should be allowed for *types*, just like TH, by extending the record of functions in the following way: data QuasiQuoter = QuasiQuoter { quoteExp :: String -> Q Exp quotePat :: String -> Q Pat quoteDec :: String -> Q [Dec] quoteType :: String -> Q Type } We have been discussing the need for this for some time, and if Kathleen hadn't effectively beaten us to it, we'd have made inquiries for the feasibility of such a facility shortly anyway. Additionally, this would make the functionality of TH and QQ more uniform. As to syntax, Both George and I prefer [name| ... |]. Yes, it clashes with list comprehensions, but users who use this facility just have to be aware of that caveat. And, as Simon says, this is already the case for TH. It is true that QQ in some ways is rather different from TH. But, from a user perspective, they're both about *meta programming*, and thus it makes sense to adopt a similar syntax for the two where "name" can be seen as a keyword to specify the kind of meta-programming one is doing. Including the empty string ([|) for the default case, basic TH expressions. Best, George and Henrik -- Henrik Nilsson School of Computer Science The University of Nottingham nhn@cs.nott.ac.uk