> I don’t think this is necessarily a binary distinction. Even in a statically-typed language, so ostensibly with Church types, you can imagine a refined type s

> I don’t think this is necessarily a binary distinction. Even in a statically-typed language, so ostensibly with Church types, you can imagine a refined type system being added as type annotations. Considering author provides LiquidHaskell as example, I'd imagine they'd agree with this sentiment > As a side node, it is etymologically amusing that Haskell doesn’t have Curry types. If I understand correctly, LiquidHaskell corrects that :)