Skip to content
GitLab
Explore
Sign in
Primary navigation
Search or go to…
Project
S
sgdt
Manage
Activity
Members
Labels
Plan
Issues
Issue boards
Milestones
Wiki
Code
Merge requests
Repository
Branches
Commits
Tags
Repository graph
Compare revisions
Snippets
Build
Pipelines
Jobs
Pipeline schedules
Artifacts
Deploy
Releases
Package registry
Model registry
Operate
Environments
Terraform modules
Monitor
Incidents
Analyze
Value stream analytics
Contributor analytics
CI/CD analytics
Repository analytics
Model experiments
Help
Help
Support
GitLab documentation
Compare GitLab plans
Community forum
Contribute to GitLab
Provide feedback
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Snippets
Groups
Projects
Show more breadcrumbs
gradual-typing
sgdt
Commits
5dc3f565
Commit
5dc3f565
authored
6 years ago
by
Max New
Browse files
Options
Downloads
Patches
Plain Diff
some todos
parent
023d5b1b
No related branches found
Branches containing commit
No related tags found
No related merge requests found
Changes
1
Hide whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
Showing
1 changed file
paper/TODO.org
+45
-0
45 additions, 0 deletions
paper/TODO.org
with
45 additions
and
0 deletions
paper/TODO.org
0 → 100644
+
45
−
0
View file @
5dc3f565
* TODO Requested Revisions
1) [X] Add names to the rules
1) [X] names everywhere
2) [X] make it not ugly
2) [-] Revise Intro
1) [X] List of Contributions
2) [X] Better overview of eta and the counter examples.
3) [ ] Have co-authors review
3) [-] Related Work
1) [ ] Degen-Thiemann
2) [X] Henglein
3) [ ] AGT
* TODO Clarity
- 4.1 call-by-push-value is dense
- multiple reviewers: there isn't a "we did this" part of the intro
- numeric citations as nouns: L1025 and "elsewhere".
- 108: *dynamic* gradual guarantee
- "AGT is based on operational semantics more than it's based on
axiomatic semantics, but it's primarily based on typing—*static*
semantics. I got the point eventually, but it was a little
jarring."
- CBPV mnemonic: liFt, thUnk
- You correctly saw the need for a section to give background on
CBPV, but it's also important to clearly summarize the two papers
you're generalizing.
* TODO Proper Attribution
- Blame soundness as a concept is not due to Wadler and Findler, but
to [Tobin-Hochstadt and Felleisen 2006] , although you may be
thinking of a more specific result here from Wadler and
Findler. The argument in this paragraph (the continuation cannot
affect the result and thus does not deserve blame) is very similar
to the criteria given in "blame correctness" by [Dimoulas et al
2011].
- Our work on constructing models of the dynamic type should cite
some of the obvious stuff on type tags, type Dynamic, etc.
* TODO Response Issues
1) L514 is unclear, and talk about completeness a little.
2) multiple blame labels
3) Lines 116-117, typed equivalences in static portions of code
4) Gradual Languages where ? doesn't exist: this is actually a
strength of this paper
5) restrict to non-effectful programs:
6) "particular equalities one might want to reason with while
programming"
7) Eta is only used in one direction
This diff is collapsed.
Click to expand it.
Preview
0%
Loading
Try again
or
attach a new file
.
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Save comment
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment