coq-club AT inria.fr
Subject: The Coq mailing list
List archive
- From: Adam Chlipala <adamc AT cs.berkeley.edu>
- To: coq-club AT pauillac.inria.fr
- Subject: Re: [Coq-Club]eta-equivalence in Coq
- Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 09:25:48 -0700
- List-archive: <http://pauillac.inria.fr/pipermail/coq-club/>
roconnor AT theorem.ca
wrote:
It seem that Coq ought to define -> to have kind type -> type -> type, and/or implement eta-equivalence.So you want to define the type of -> in terms of itself? That sounds messy, and even more so since it is just syntactic sugar for 'forall'.
- [Coq-Club]eta-equivalence in Coq, roconnor
- Re: [Coq-Club]eta-equivalence in Coq, Adam Chlipala
- Re: [Coq-Club]eta-equivalence in Coq, roconnor
- Re: [Coq-Club]eta-equivalence in Coq, Adam Chlipala
Archive powered by MhonArc 2.6.16.