I mean multistage languages ala MetaOCaml. For instance, see "Macros as MultiStage Computations: TypeSafe, Generative, Binding Macros in MacroML" [1].
However, if macros are the way you're going, I've heard good things about [2]. Sandro [1] http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/440438.html [2] http://www.cs.utah.edu/plt/publications/macromod.pdf Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > Sandro: > > Can you say what you mean by "multistaging"? > > It is certainly true that a well-structured macro system can be > implemented in a pre-processor. There are two differences: > > 1. The macro expansion is integrated into the compiler front end. > This is mainly a matter of implementation. > > 2. The macro mechanism is extensible. It is certainly possible to > build extensible preprocessors, but most preprocessors have > not been extensible in this way. > > shap > > > On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 13:16 -0400, Sandro Magi wrote: >> Ever since learning about multistaging, I've never seen the point of >> macros. I'd imagine that BitC would only want to permit one stage, and >> using staging has the advantage of retaining important type information. >> >> Staging can also permit a limited form of reflection/polytypism [1]. I >> suspect that you might consider even a single stage as a tad too >> ambitious though. :-) >> >> Sandro >> >> [1] http://okmij.org/ftp/ML/#gprint > > _______________________________________________ > bitc-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
