<div dir="ltr">On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Simon Marlow <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:marlowsd@gmail.com" target="_blank">marlowsd@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 13/07/12 21:18, Heinrich Apfelmus wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">1. Mark my library as Trustworthy even though I don't have sufficient</div>
proof. This severely weakens the guarantees of Safe Haskell.<br>
2. Mark my library as Unsafe. But then people can't use it to write Safe<br>
code and will complain.<br>
<br>
The trouble is that I have a strong incentive to solve the problem<br>
arising from 2 by doing 1. Oops.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The idea is that you do (1).</blockquote><div><br></div><div>And now I'm having a "so what's the point?" moment? All this effort so we can just mark random stuff as Trusted anyway?</div><div><br></div>
</div>-- <br>brandon s allbery <a href="mailto:allbery.b@gmail.com" target="_blank">allbery.b@gmail.com</a><br>wandering unix systems administrator (available) (412) 475-9364 vm/sms<br>
<br>
</div>