coq-club AT inria.fr
Subject: The Coq mailing list
List archive
- 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.''
- [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.