Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

coq-club - Re: [Coq-Club]eta-equivalence in Coq

coq-club AT inria.fr

Subject: The Coq mailing list

List archive

Re: [Coq-Club]eta-equivalence in Coq


chronological Thread 
  • From: roconnor AT theorem.ca
  • To: Coq Club <coq-club AT pauillac.inria.fr>
  • Subject: Re: [Coq-Club]eta-equivalence in Coq
  • Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 13:20:36 -0400 (EDT)
  • List-archive: <http://pauillac.inria.fr/pipermail/coq-club/>

On Wed, 5 Jul 2006, Adam Chlipala wrote:

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'.

Well, the arrows are at different type levels, so I presume they are really different arrows. But you make a good point about the arrow being syntactic sugar for forall. I had forgot about that.

--
Russell O'Connor                                      <http://r6.ca/>
``All talk about `theft,''' the general counsel of the American Graphophone
Company wrote, ``is the merest claptrap, for there exists no property in
ideas musical, literary or artistic, except as defined by statute.''





Archive powered by MhonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page