My 2 cents: John Lask (Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 08:57:52AM +1030): > I would like to sound out the Haskell community on what the feeling are > most desirable to improve the "commerciality" (i.e. its general use) of ghc > and Haskell in general (as distinct from feature set) > > 3) Macro / conditional compilation / compiler meta language / additional > binding forms > These are perhaps distinct issues but can be discussed together. > The prevalent use of #ifdef and the cpp is indicative of the general > need to have some standard means by > which differences between compilers ghc/hugs/nhc can be accommodated for > in the source code. > To date this issue has not been tackled in any meaningful way, perhaps > we can continue > to use cpp but for the sake of portability > > A means of defining additional binding forms would be nice as it would > further facilitate embedded dsl > for which Haskell is pre-eminent, and which use is a great motivator > for venturing into > Haskell in the first place.
The macro languages tend to become more and more complex over time. Eventually, you have two complex languages. First, a Haskell Macro Language, second Haskell. Why can we not use staging like in Omega, cf. [1], or Template Haskell? Maybe Haskell itself can generate the compiler and system specific source? [1] http://www.cs.pdx.edu/~sheard/Omega/index.html Regards, -- Stefan Karrmann _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
