Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

coq-club - Re: [Coq-Club] Deferring proofs in definitions

coq-club AT inria.fr

Subject: The Coq mailing list

List archive

Re: [Coq-Club] Deferring proofs in definitions


chronological Thread 
  • From: St�phane Lescuyer <stephane.lescuyer AT inria.fr>
  • To: AUGER Cedric <Cedric.Auger AT lri.fr>
  • Cc: Daniel Schepler <dschepler AT gmail.com>, Coq Club <coq-club AT inria.fr>
  • Subject: Re: [Coq-Club] Deferring proofs in definitions
  • Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 10:55:08 +0200

> But beware, I am not sure you can make parts of this program opaque and
> other transparents; that means that your term will either be unfoldable
> everywhere with its full proof (when terminating with "Defined")
> or never unfoldable (when terminating with "Qed"),
> but to produce an unfoldable skeleton with opaque proofs, I am pretty
> sure that you need "Program".

I second Cedric's answer, you should try refine or Program. Note that
there is probably a nicer way to do wha

-- 
I'm the kind of guy that until it happens, I won't worry about it. -
R.H. RoY05, MVP06



Archive powered by MhonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page