Formal verification of containers

[Tom Murphy]

(My 2 cents, not as a containers developer)

First of all, bravo! This is great news.

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 11:17 PM, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de
> wrote:

>
>  - we’d still welcome contributions that break the proofs, but let them
>    sit in pull requests until someone updates the proofs on the PR and
>    then merge
>

If we imagine, as David does, that updating proofs will take a couple of
weeks (or months), I'd imagine an advantage of this option is that:
  - The percent of containers users who only use features older than weeks
or months from bleeding edge: 95+%
  - The percent of end-users who will realistically switch their code from
containers to containers-verified: certainly less than 20%

If we can seamlessly switch the vast majority of users to this new verified
code, and be able to say that a ubiquitous component of Haskell development
is formally verified, I'd say that's a huge accomplishment.

An alternative proposal would be to have a "containers-unverified"
*upstream* instead of a "containers-verified" downstream. This would also
neatly sidestep the problem of if "containers-verified" should export
unverified code: it's just "containers" as usual, just with some extra
verification.

Tom
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20180201/94629e6f/attachment.html>