coq-club AT inria.fr
Subject: The Coq mailing list
List archive
- From: Pierre Boutillier <pierre.boutillier AT pps.jussieu.fr>
- To: Coq-Club <coq-club AT inria.fr>
- Subject: Re: [Coq-Club] Destruct vs. inversion
- Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 10:12:34 +0200
Hi all,
On 2011/04/07, at 22:39, Benjamin C. Pierce wrote:
... but are there situations where inversion doesn't work and destruct does?
I see one indirect limitation :
inversion used to be not friend with the "fix" tactic because
inversion rewrites equality over arguments of the inductive and
fix f x := match x withwasn't accepted by <= v8.3 guard condition. (In trunk, guard condition handles commutative cuts)
|C y => f (eq_rect bli bla blo y)
end
Pierre Boutillier
pierre.boutillier AT pps.jussieu.fr
- [Coq-Club] Destruct vs. inversion, Benjamin C. Pierce
- Re: [Coq-Club] Destruct vs. inversion, Daniel Schepler
- Re: [Coq-Club] Destruct vs. inversion, Nathan Collins
- Re: [Coq-Club] Destruct vs. inversion,
Guillaume Melquiond
- Re: [Coq-Club] Destruct vs. inversion, Jean-Francois Monin
- Re: [Coq-Club] Destruct vs. inversion,
Benjamin C. Pierce
- Re: [Coq-Club] Destruct vs. inversion, Jacques Garrigue
- Message not available
- Re: [Coq-Club] Destruct vs. inversion, Pierre Boutillier
- Message not available
- Re: [Coq-Club] Destruct vs. inversion, Paolo Herms
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: [Coq-Club] Destruct vs. inversion,
Daniel de Rauglaudre
- Re: [Coq-Club] Destruct vs. inversion, Chantal Keller
- Message not available
- Re: [Coq-Club] Destruct vs. inversion, Daniel de Rauglaudre
Archive powered by MhonArc 2.6.16.