That's an interesting angle. Another way of saying it might be that GoDP on the face of it can make one-off proofs for a value. Proofs for a function requires m

That's an interesting angle. Another way of saying it might be that GoDP on the face of it can make one-off proofs for a value. Proofs for a function requires making proofs about all possible inputs, which is where your property test comes in handy. I could have `Named a (List x -> List x -> List x)` as the function I'm proving things about. With some template-haskell you could run the property test at compile-time, and then use that proof later (e.g. for an instance of Semigroup which would require a argument proof of associativity), in languages like Unison that never run the same test suite twice (due to Content addressable code), this would be feasible. Or just run the property in your test suite and hope that the developer runs the test suite often. GHC erases data types that aren't actually evaluated in many contexts, so we even have erasure too. I like your angle!