Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

coq-club - Re: [Coq-Club] relevance of evaluating accessibility arguments

coq-club AT inria.fr

Subject: The Coq mailing list

List archive

Re: [Coq-Club] relevance of evaluating accessibility arguments


chronological Thread 
  • From: Jean-Francois Monin <jeanfrancois.monin AT rd.francetelecom.com>
  • To: Venanzio Capretta <Venanzio.Capretta AT sophia.inria.fr>
  • Cc: Nicolas Magaud <Nicolas.Magaud AT sophia.inria.fr>, Jean-Francois Monin <jeanfrancois.monin AT rd.francetelecom.com>, coq-club AT pauillac.inria.fr
  • Subject: Re: [Coq-Club] relevance of evaluating accessibility arguments
  • Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:20:31 +0100
  • List-archive: <http://pauillac.inria.fr/pipermail/coq-club/>

Thanks for the interesting "Repeat Constructor", that I didn't know.
It does not help in avoiding the evaluation of accessibility arguments,
but at least it saves much time.

Your trick is usable even if more than one constructor can be applied.
In my example I can replace 
  Definition ok124 := Eval Lazy... in (all_acc_div2 (124)).
with
  Definition ok124 : (acc_div2 (124)).
  Repeat Constructor.
  Defined.

Note also that your program has a completely different computational meaning 
since your fAcc has type nat -> Set, instead of nat -> Prop.
(this is related to the remarks of Randy).

Best,
  Jean-Francois





Archive powered by MhonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page