On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm debating with Shap whether or not it's OK for type inference to > sometimes fail for unintelligible reasons. I say yes, Shap says no. My > motivation is that getting well-behaved type inference places > uncomfortable restrictions on the language design, at least given the > current state of the art.
Let's say both! If we manage to go the extensible proof checker route, we can make everyone happy (or at least as happy as can be expected). Let's move this discussion to the thread I just started with the better name. Geoffrey _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
