On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> > wrote: > > However: shap still harbors an unhappy suspicion that we *need* dependent > > types. Given this, I definitely think we should consider the > implications of > > our designs in the context of the appropriate dependent type theories. > > > > Or at least that's what shap thought when I spoke to him last... > > You talk like this it seems whenever I tell someone about what "Shap" > said. I'm talking about you, of course. Your signature just says > "shap". Would you like me to refer to you some other way? Or should I > never try to report what you've said? Don't worry about it. I just think it's funny when other people know what I think when I have no idea myself what I think. But it's all in fun. shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
