On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Geoffrey Irving <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
I don't think extensible checking helps here. If I'm understanding correctly, Shap will not want to use language features unless someone comes up with sufficiently well-behaved type inference for it. In principle, extensible checking would allow the inference to be added outside the core language, but if there _is_ no way to do inference, some features shouldn't have gone into the core language in the first place. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
