On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Geoffrey Irving <[email protected]> wrote:>> > Anyway, I have an idea about how to avoid the limitations of a fixed > >> "official" proof checker. It's what I've been thinking about since > >> then. It's overkill though, given that BitC is just dabbling with > >> dependent types. (Or at least that's my understanding.) > > > > I'd be very curious to hear it. Maybe another thread unless shap > > thinks we've veered out of bitc territory? This one about grammar is > > getting a bit long. > > I'll reply just to you until Shap wants to hear it. You haven't veered out of BitC territory, and I really encourage you to have the discussion on the list so that we will be able to find it later. But I do think that a new thread is in order. So that we will be able to find it later. ;-) shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
