As understanding of a problem develops, types get refined to better explain what's going on. Not necessarily bigger, just better. We're going to need much better editing and refactoring tools than we currently have, though, to do this well.
The whole point of my thread was that dependent types are about much more than specification, and discussions always assume otherwise.
-
-
Alright, but that’s what I’m having a hard time understanding. What’s the difference between “expressing your understanding” and writing an invariant? And your linking of “specification and proof” confused me further because in formal methods we (try to) separate the two.
-
Fair enough. I can see we’re never going to agree here, so I’m going to do productive things. I hope all our favoured methods work out!
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.