Clarifying dependent types

We are indeed coming up on 10 years of fears about DH.

The Committee has decided to proceed with DH. Can I suggest we all just shut up and stop distracting those who understand DH and are competent to implement it.

I don’t understand. (I’d describe myself as hostile to DH – or at least hostile to all the proposed syntax that’s growing like a carbunkle on the face of a dear friend).

Clearly I’m too stupid to understand. Probably I’m too stupid to ever write DH. (Although I’m happily using FunDeps to achieve what seems to be the same outcomes – and yes we’re coming up 20 years on using those techniques.) Perhaps I might benefit from packages written using DH. But I’m never going to find out unless it actually gets delivered.

So just stop the hubbub.

1 Like