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
