I'm not sure, I don't know LISP in detail, but as far as I know, LISP is a fully dynamic language.

I actually meant a static language where you build your own strong types using the language itself. On the micro level, the language only knows abouts bits and bytes without semantics, just like assembler, no types at all. But the language allows you to build whatever "type" or "semantics" you want from scratch, by providing a keyword that forces certain part of the program to be evaluated at compile time. A bit like macros, but written in the same language. Although not exactly the same, the Digital Mars D language has a "static if (p) { q }" statement, where p must evaluate to a constant expression at compile time, otherwise the compiler gives an error/warning (I'm not sure, haven't tried it yet). You can do that in C++ (using templates) and Haskell (using types) but these are actually mini-sub-languages. Probably giving control to the programmer of how type-checking should be coded bypasses the advantages of strong typing, so this is most likely a dumb idea...

Anyway, I should not mention these ideas, I'm just a programmer, not a computer scientist ;-)

Peter

Adrian Neumann wrote: 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

I heard only rumors, but isn't Lisp supposed to be just that? A
programmable programming language?

Peter Verswyvelen schrieb:
  
This is all very cool stuff, but sometimes I wander if it isn't possible
to drop the special languages for fiddling with types, and introduce
just a single language which has no types, only raw data from which you
can built your own "types" (as in the old days when we used macro
assemblers ;-), but the language has two special keywords: static and
dynamic, where code annotated with static runs in the "compiler domain",
and code annotated with dynamic runs in "application domain". Of course,
I don't know much about this, so this idea might be totally insane ;-)
Probably this is impossible because of the halting problem or something...

Pete

Don Stewart wrote:
    
Better here means "better" -- a functional language on the type 
system,
to type a functional language on the value level.

-- Don
      
          
For a taste, see Instant Insanity transliterated in this functional 
language:

http://hpaste.org/2689

NB: it took me 5 minutes, and that was my first piece of coding ever 
with Type families
    
        
Wow. Great work!
The new age of type hackery has dawned.

-- Don
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe


  
      
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
    

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG6ikc11V8mqIQMRsRA+PzAKCN0bC6lv8p9WEwJkJrcczktIdKGACfUdkt
0QBGlmgwfYrKS6lKEwQihkc=
=31jo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe