The Coq mailing list

[Altenkirch Thorsten <psztxa AT exmail.nottingham.ac.uk>]

>
>
>
>About K: Coq has managed to describe a pattern-match which does not
>allow it (by making less unification information available in the
>branches), and I don't think it's that relevant to the problem at hand,
>which is mostly concerned about when a term is a subterm of another.

I don't agree!

If the only proof of equality is refl then it is clear that subst should
preserve the structural ordering. So K and the wrong (because untyped)
subterm ordering are related.

Thorsten

This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may 
contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, 
please send it back to me, and immediately delete it.   Please do not use, 
copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any 
attachment.  Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do 
not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham.

This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system, 
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the 
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.