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:
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