<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>A Lambda Term Representation Inspired by Linear Ordered Logic · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1111.0085/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1111.0085/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>A Lambda Term Representation Inspired by Linear Ordered Logic — mentioned by chriswarbo</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24827627</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1111.0085:24827627</guid><pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2020 16:03:08 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;There are tricky aspects, and I&amp;#x27;ve tripped up a few times over the years. Most annoying is trying to make a &amp;#x27;step&amp;#x27; function from lambda terms to lambda terms; we either need to produce a separate closure type instead, or encode those closures to lambda terms (which may defeat the point of &amp;quot;reducing&amp;quot;), or perform explicit substitution a la call-by-name (duplicating work). I don&amp;#x27;t think I&amp;#x27;ve ever got all the details of capture-avoiding substitution right (I get part way there, then just copy/paste someone else&amp;#x27;s code ;) ). Of course, de Bruijn indices can help with this, and I&amp;#x27;m a big fan. They…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1111.0085/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.LO</category></item></channel></rss>
