> Very good. Is there a concrete proposal for such macros? I think the > arrow notation would be a harder test case than any of the existing > syntactic sugar; I'd be curious to see what it looked like. (And is > there support for adding these macros to Haskell?)
Sadly, there's not a concrete proposal - it seems that no one sees a need for macros in a lazy language. Most of what they do can be achieved through laziness - you can write "if" in Haskell already, for example, whereas you need a macro for it in Lisp. Your arrow notation example may provide some motivation, though. > > Hygiene is a key concept here; that variables bound in a macro > > should not clash with other variables in the program (unless this is > > explicitly required). > > Off to read some Dylan manuals, Do that, but the details of hygienic macros were first worked out in Scheme (a kind of Lisp), and then Dylan's was based on Scheme's. The key difference is that Dylan has a rich syntax, whereas Scheme just has S-expressions. > Dylan _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
