Yesterday, Raoul Duke wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote:
> > (...and therefore having types go through macro-expansion is even
> > more obviously missing...)
>
> could the macros+types be something as strong as e.g. metaocaml?
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3037643/typed-metaprogramming-languages
That would be some way to communicate type information to the macro
expansion. What I'm talking about is much simpler: just macro-expand
the types like all other syntax, which gets you something that is
"only" as strong as Racket macros. (Later on, it can be extended in a
compatible way to know about types via something like syntax
properties, or a syntax-time parameter.)
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
____________________
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
