coq-club AT inria.fr

Subject: The Coq mailing list

List archive

Re: [Coq-Club] Setoids on dependently typed functions?

From: Adam Koprowski <adam.koprowski AT gmail.com>
To: Matthieu Sozeau <mattam AT mattam.org>
Cc: Coq Club <coq-club AT pauillac.inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Coq-Club] Setoids on dependently typed functions?
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:22:24 +0200
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=Awq8LNTa8uQQIrMSujwW4kIJhtMwoucz/P4wUSMB8OoswgLZ+DhX4Uno6hTm+uQefo y1fKGUYsFaZF35zXyqTryD6PgCWKKU6mKMo0Lu0g0s3SO65gdZ5Cp8C2oMOb9xv3jhbV b7wvDIJwWvBFzxKh8WRTJlSmVJ/f0N265QaHE=
List-archive: <http://pauillac.inria.fr/pipermail/coq-club/>

�� Dear Matthieu,

� Thanks a lot for your prompt and helpful response. I'll follow your suggestions and see how things are after updating to the trunk.
�
� Cheers,
�� Adam

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 23:27, Matthieu Sozeau <mattam AT mattam.org> wrote:

Hi again,

Actually, I sent this a bit too quickly. There was a simple fix to
make this work if the dependent arguments stay unchanged. It's in
the trunk. I'm not sure that unification will always be good enough
with signatures using [forall_relation] though.

Cheers,
-- Matthieu

--
=====================================================
Adam.Koprowski AT gmail.com, http://www.cs.ru.nl/~Adam.Koprowski
The difference between impossible and possible
lies in determination (Tommy Lasorda)
=====================================================

[Coq-Club] Setoids on dependently typed functions?, Adam Koprowski
- Re: [Coq-Club] Setoids on dependently typed functions?, Matthieu Sozeau
  - Re: [Coq-Club] Setoids on dependently typed functions?, Matthieu Sozeau
    - Re: [Coq-Club] Setoids on dependently typed functions?, Adam Koprowski