[ghc-steering-committee] What do we need from the linear-types proposal?

[Simon Peyton Jones]

I agree -- Greek is enough providing it is complete enough to convince the reader that the transliteration will be routine.

Simon

|  -----Original Message-----
|  From: Richard Eisenberg [mailto:rae at cs.brynmawr.edu]
|  Sent: 27 November 2017 22:04
|  To: Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>
|  Cc: Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de>; ghc-steering-
|  committee at haskell.org
|  Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] What do we need from the linear-
|  types proposal?
|  
|  
|  > On Nov 27, 2017, at 9:58 AM, Simon Peyton Jones
|  <simonpj at microsoft.com> wrote:
|  >
|  > * If a proposal requires a change to Core, that change should be
|  > described rather precisely.
|  
|  In Greek or in Haskell? Less tersely: does a formalization in a paper
|  suffice? Or should the proposal write out the new Haskell definition?
|  These are closely related, but not the same. (For example,
|  formalizations don't include the AppTy/TyConApp/FunTy distinction that
|  is important for performance.)
|  
|  My own view is that Greek is enough.
|  
|  Richard