[junke]

I am also aware of that. I am not really trying to convince you of anything, mostly trying to prevent casual readers from being taught Common Lisp from you. Look at the example you just gave, this is beyond ridiculous. I would prefer if you were focusing on what you want to fight "for", not what you want to fight "against".

You like having a strong separation between the language and its implementation. I get it. Note however that if you are the Haskell compiler, you can know things the programmer cannot, or you can inject code that can perform manipulations the programmer cannot express. There probably is an identity equality operator down there, that people cannot access. If you like that, I can understand; I can understand the appeal for a strict separation of concerns and the desire to express only the high-level intent. But really, I think this is not much different in CL and that you are focusing on implementation details. In CL the separation is not enforced, and that is your main problem with it.

The CL compiler is defined at the language specification level. You have access to internals, by choice, just as if you were writing Haskell ASTs using an Haskell compiler's internal API. As such, you can cross abstraction barriers whenever you need. We already discussed about this once, you can use purely functional data-structures (see FSET) and EQUALP and code to that functional interface and pretend there is no computer down there. Then, if you want, you can play with packages and symbols to make MAP & co. refer to the parallel version (see LPARALLEL), re-compile and have parallel code (this works best with unqualified symbols and different package definitions for the same file).

In all PL discussions, there is eventually mention of an hypothetical sufficiently smart compiler. The CL point of view is (among other things) that such a compiler is one where a programmer can easily add its own extensions. That allows you to express the intent of the program clearly in one place and have the implementation details elsewhere.

[catnaroek]

> Note however that if you are the Haskell compiler, you can know things the programmer cannot, or you can inject code that can perform manipulations the programmer cannot express.

Those would be implementation details, not part of the language itself. Hence...

> There probably is an identity equality operator down there, that people cannot access.

... this doesn't make sense.

> You have access to internals, by choice, just as if you were writing Haskell ASTs using an Haskell compiler's internal API.

However, there's no way to portably manipulate compiler internals in Haskell. Heck, Haskell syntax, unlike Lisp syntax, can actually be represented in multiple ways: named variables, de Bruijn indices and levels, HOAS, etc. And this is a good thing.

> In all PL discussions, there is eventually mention of an hypothetical sufficiently smart compiler.

I wouldn't have brought it up myself.

> The CL point of view is (among other things) that such a compiler is one where a programmer can easily add its own extensions.

There's no dichotomy between extensibility and abstraction enforcement, even if you try to set up one.

[junke]

> ... this doesn't make sense.

In order to have an ML, you take a subset of Common Lisp and specialize/extend it in a very specific direction. The part that are removed from Lisp are the one you don't care about. I care about being able to use different equivalence classes, including the ones the compiler is going to require, like identity equality, because this matters when I implement abstractions myself.

> However, there's no way to portably manipulate compiler internals in Haskell.

Yes, why not, that would be damn useful. The alternative is to hack each implementation in its own way.

> Heck, Haskell syntax, unlike Lisp syntax, can actually be represented in multiple ways: [...]

Do you get the difference between internal and external representations? When you see (lambda (a) (+ a 1)), you don't know how the code is represented internally and how its value, when executed, is represented internally (when my compiler performs data-flow analysis, it uses a specific internal representation I don't need to know). Yet, you have access to a uniform API, defined at the language level, to manipulate data. That's why you can have the same source code working on the JVM, interpreted using a C/C++ runtime or directly expressed as assembly. In that sense, there is a separation between the language and its implementation. But part of the language specification is also there to guarantee a uniform way of building new extensions and integrate them with the compiler. That is a good thing. What is not enforced is how and when each feature is used. If that matters, dump a specialized Lisp image that you call the "compiler" and call it with Make on a file expressed in your custom DSL.

> There's no dichotomy between extensibility and abstraction enforcement, even if you try to set up one.

I am not trying to set up one. Just read more carefully.

[catnaroek]

> Do you get the difference between internal and external representations? When you see (lambda (a) (+ a 1)), you don't know how the code is represented internally and how its value, when executed [emphasis mine], is represented internally

I'm not talking about representations of semantic objects. I'm talking about representations of syntax. In Lisp's case, you don't get to choose - the macro system critically depends on a particular representation (named variables). Have fun writing macros that operate on HOAS.

[junke]

> In Lisp's case, you don't get to choose - the macro system critically depends on a particular representation (named variables)

Please tell me how Haskell represents HOAS and how this is not possible in Lisp.

Also, read Barzilay's paper (http://scheme2006.cs.uchicago.edu/15-barzilay.pdf), or about the Ergo Project (1988! http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2763&c...).

[catnaroek]

> Please tell me how Haskell represents HOAS and how this is not possible in Lisp.

I'm not talking about representing some object language's syntax in Haskell or Lisp. I'm talking about representing Haskell or Lisp's syntax in some other metalanguage (possibly Haskell or Lisp itself). How would you implement a macro expander that operates on HOAS?

> Barzilay's paper (http://scheme2006.cs.uchicago.edu/15-barzilay.pdf)

The object language implemented in that paper isn't the whole of Scheme, and in particular, it doesn't have macros.

> Ergo Project (1988! http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2763&c...)

Sorry, I can't find an explicit description of any object language's syntax in this paper.

[kazinator]

> How would you implement a macro expander that operates on HOAS?

Hmm, you would expect that HOAS actually be helpful in this area in some ways. Since variables are no longer resolved by matching symbols to binding information in a scoped environment (all we have is direct names references to the binding inserted in the code, or something like that), we don't have hygiene issues when we move code around without having to do any alpha-renaming, or gensyms. It sounds rather convenient, unless we expressly want to do something non-hygienic.

So how would we implement a macro expander? Like we implement anything else: in whatever way that implementation satisfies the specification of macros under HOAS. What is the specification: that is the question. What are HOAS macros, or macros under HOAS?

Not having a formal specification, we might want at least some examples: OK, I have this HOAS artifact, and would like to be able to write it in a more condensed way using this other HOAS: now how to make one into the other? That gives us a function, where we can identify the inputs, which have to be arguments to the macro somehow and so it goes.

Some kind of dual macro system could be useful: a raw source code macro system for doing un-hygienic things, and then a parallel one which kicks in when the code is converted to HOAS.

[kazinator]

In what language do we input code as HOAS, and target that representation with macros?

(Can't we expand macros in a conventional representation with symbols and environments and then go to HOAS?)

(It's not news that macros are weak in some sense; I mean you can shoot yourself in the foot with the classic non-hygienic ones; you can disrespect even the first order abstract syntax that you're working in: the macro can re-locate a piece of raw syntax which contains identifier references into the wrong scope where those references resolve otherwise.)

Anyway, have fun fishing for mackerel with your bear trap?

[catnaroek]

The “conventional” representation of syntax using explicitly named variables is utterly inconvenient and error-prone for anything other than parsing. The very first thing I want to do after parsing is convert the syntax tree to de Bruijn indices/levels or HOAS.

[kazinator]

You could expand some conventional macros first, then go to HOAS with what is left (and then do another pass with a separate HOAS macro system, perhaps).

How the heck do you handle hierarchical run-time environments in these representations? Especially mutable ones? If we have this:

  (let (a b c)
     (let (d e f)
        (lambda ())) ;; escapes somehow
     (let (g h i)
       (lambda ()))) ;; ditto
     (lambda ())) ;; ditto

These lambdas capture different, overlapping environments which share the (a b c) bindings. If there is an inner loop which repeatedly instantiates the (d e f), then new closures are made with different instances of these variables: yet those closures all share the same (a b c) bindings.

So we can't just flatten the entire lexical scope to some HOAS terms and pretend that its hierarchical structure doesn't exist.