Add links to Turing completeness posts in RATIONALE
@@ -139,9 +139,13 @@ terminate, and combinators on collections (e.g. `map` or `fold`) - or equivalent
bounded loops - are enough in practice: why take the risk of writing programs
stuck in an infinite loop for no reward ? On the other hand, one can write
programs with huge running time and complexity even in a language which is not
-Turing-complete. Also, while configuration-specific code almost never requires
-recursion, this is not the case of library code. Allowing recursion makes it
-possible for programmers to implement new generic functionalities.
+Turing-complete \[1\]. Also, while configuration-specific code almost
+never requires recursion, this is not the case of library code. Allowing
+recursion makes it possible for programmers to implement new generic
+functionalities \[2\].
+
+\[1\]: [Why Dhall is not Turing complete](http://neilmitchell.blogspot.com/2020/11/turing-incomplete-languages.html)\
+\[2\]: [Turing incomplete languages](http://www.haskellforall.com/2020/01/why-dhall-advertises-absence-of-turing.html)
### Side-Effects
As for Turing-completeness, most of these languages also forbid side-effects.
