Commit 6a429edd authored by Giuseppe Castagna's avatar Giuseppe Castagna
Browse files

added positions

parent 80d400e2
......@@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ subtyping. Probably a consequence of the pandemic.
Of course, the new version of the related work section includes now a
detailed comparison with the (indeed highly related) chapter 5 of the
dissertations, (see: p30l??-??) and, yes, the function application
dissertations, (see: p30-31) and, yes, the function application
inversion of Kent is, in the spirit, the same as our worra operator
(we do not know whether the reviewers noticed that ``worra'' is an
inverted ``arrow'': read it from right to left).
......@@ -305,14 +305,14 @@ connections as well. For example, the proof system for the
\(\vdash^{Path}\) judgment is very similar to the proof system used in
{[}23{]} (Figures 4 \& 7 there).
Done (see: p29l??-??)
Done (see: p29 first 10 lines)
The approach of generalizing the type environment to
prove a more general set of propositions (here, about arbitrary
expressions, there, about expressions with a limited set a pure
functions, but see below) is also present in both.
Done (see: p32l???-???)
Done (see: p32 third quarter of the page)
......@@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ difficulties in proofs of type soundness is discussed in {[}22{]}.
We added a long discussion on this point, namely how to
handle the type preservation property, in the related work section when
comparing with {[}22{]} (see: p29l??-??)
comparing with {[}22{]} (see: p29 last paragraph, till page 30)
More generally, we also went more in depth in the comparison with the
logical approach by THF, to highlight further limitations of our
......@@ -366,7 +366,8 @@ paper clearer.
This is a very nice insight. We reproduced it (giving credits) in the
section on related work, which now ends with a long discussion on the
design space w.r.t. side effects and on our future plans to cope with
the presence of impure expressions. (see: p32l??-??)
the presence of impure expressions. See: p32 (last paragraph) till
page 33
......@@ -385,7 +386,7 @@ unneeded:
We added a long discussion to explain the reasons of our
choice. It is in the related work section (see: p29l ??-??) when
choice. It is in the related work section (see: p29bottom p30top) when
comparing with {[}22{]} (i.e. Tobin-Hochstadt\&Felleisen
2008). In a nutshell we prefer starting with a system that
satisfies type preservation, define a sound but not-complete
......@@ -504,7 +505,7 @@ is to
show an example that works both in Typed Racket and in our system but
it does not in TypeScript and Flow. In the case that this were the
correct interpretation of the remark of the reviewer,we added a
comment in p28l???-???
comment in p28
......@@ -569,7 +570,7 @@ type preservation). We rewrote the sentence to be more clear.
=\Domain\setminus\semantic{\empt}=\Domain$. So
$\semantic{\empt}$ is empty and undef is not in (the
interpretation of) \any. We added an explanation (see:
p17l???-???). In short \texttt{Undef} is a special singleton type
p17 after the definition of Types). In short \texttt{Undef} is a special singleton type
whose interpretation contains only the
constant \texttt{undef} which is not in $\Domain$.
......@@ -662,7 +663,7 @@ the new contributions.
of refined types appearing in arbitrary places, which is very similar
to the first contribution of this work.
Done (page 31??)
Done (page 31 center)
An alternative approach followed by refinement type systems is to
ANF-transform the programs. A discussion is missing on how these two
......@@ -671,7 +672,7 @@ the new contributions.
while the two alternatives used by refinement types preserve
Done (page 31??)
Done (page 31 center)
......@@ -682,7 +683,7 @@ the new contributions.
also presents a set theoretic interpretation), thus a comparison is
Done (page 31??)
Done (page 31 bottom)
In 3.3 it is mentioned that ``we are not aware of any study in this
......@@ -787,7 +788,7 @@ the new contributions.
mentions $n_o$ which does not appear in the theorem statement.
We changed the notation of the judgments so that it now explicitly
mentions the ${n_o}$ (see p15l??-??)
mentions the ${n_o}$ (see p15)
\item Section
......@@ -947,7 +948,7 @@ failed and that after a couple of months were fixed and magically
worked in one or the other.
We significantly extended the part in Section 5 where we explain this,
by enriching it with the comments above. See p32l???-???.
by enriching it with the comments above. See p32 third quarter.
......@@ -1068,7 +1069,7 @@ should be sound. In general, if you know that $x \in A$ and $(A \land
\not= \emptyset$, then you certainly can't conclude that $x \in \neg B$.
We added an explanation and given a reference for a thorough
discussion (see p10l??-??)
discussion (see p10 center)
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment