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@cs.brynmawr.edu]
| Sent: 27 November 2017 22:04
| To: Simon Peyton Jones
| Cc: Joachim Breitner ; ghc-steering-
| committee@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
| 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
