coq-club AT inria.fr
Subject: The Coq mailing list
List archive
- From: Jason Gross <jasongross9 AT gmail.com>
- To: coq-club AT inria.fr
- Subject: Re: [Coq-Club] Easy question re: implicit parameters
- Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2017 08:29:47 +0000
- Authentication-results: mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; spf=None smtp.pra=jasongross9 AT gmail.com; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=jasongross9 AT gmail.com; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster AT mail-qk0-f178.google.com
- Ironport-phdr: 9a23:MYAgbReXS3HhZbQAmS0MetkMlGMj4u6mDksu8pMizoh2WeGdxc2/Yh7h7PlgxGXEQZ/co6odzbGJ4+a9ASQp2tWojjMrSNR0TRgLiMEbzUQLIfWuLgnFFsPsdDEwB89YVVVorDmROElRH9viNRWJ+iXhpW1aJhKqPg1sY+/xB4T6jsKt1un09YeATR9PgW+faKh1Kl2ZtwLKrYFCg4J5LaA+0BzSuSpgdOFfxGcuLlWWyUWvrvys9YJupnwD88kq8NRNBP33
function_scope is useful if you have notations for things like function composition. I think what Coq should actually do here is add two things to the scope stack: function_scope, and whatever corresponds to the codomain, if there is one. So an argument of type [A -> bool] should be interpreted in %function_scope%bool_scope, and an argument of type [A -> Type] should be interpreted in type %function_scope%type_scope.
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017, 5:05 PM Guillaume Melquiond <guillaume.melquiond AT inria.fr> wrote:
On 15/09/2017 22:43, Guillaume Melquiond wrote:
> Arguments sig (A P)%type.
> Arguments sig2 (A P Q)%type.
>
> That said, I don't understand why P and Q are forced into type_scope.
> This does not make sense to me. They should have been left in
> function_scope.
Scrap that. I had forgotten that type_scope not only contains the type
constructors, but also the logical connectives, so it makes lot of sense.
In fact, I now wonder if having Coq assigns the function_scope scope by
default is useful in practice. Assigning the scope corresponding to the
result type (assuming there is one) might be a more useful default behavior.
Best regards,
Guillaume
- RE: [Coq-Club] Easy question re: implicit parameters, (continued)
- RE: [Coq-Club] Easy question re: implicit parameters, Soegtrop, Michael, 09/15/2017
- Re: [Coq-Club] Easy question re: implicit parameters, Maxime Dénès, 09/15/2017
- Re: [Coq-Club] Easy question re: implicit parameters, Ralf Jung, 09/15/2017
- RE: [Coq-Club] Easy question re: implicit parameters, Soegtrop, Michael, 09/15/2017
- Re: [Coq-Club] Easy question re: implicit parameters, Guillaume Melquiond, 09/15/2017
- RE: [Coq-Club] Easy question re: implicit parameters, Soegtrop, Michael, 09/15/2017
- Re: [Coq-Club] Easy question re: implicit parameters, Guillaume Melquiond, 09/15/2017
- RE: [Coq-Club] Easy question re: implicit parameters, Soegtrop, Michael, 09/15/2017
- Re: [Coq-Club] Easy question re: implicit parameters, Guillaume Melquiond, 09/15/2017
- Re: [Coq-Club] Easy question re: implicit parameters, Guillaume Melquiond, 09/15/2017
- Re: [Coq-Club] Easy question re: implicit parameters, Jason Gross, 09/16/2017
- RE: [Coq-Club] Easy question re: implicit parameters, Soegtrop, Michael, 09/18/2017
- Re: [Coq-Club] Easy question re: implicit parameters, Guillaume Melquiond, 09/18/2017
- RE: [Coq-Club] Easy question re: implicit parameters, Soegtrop, Michael, 09/18/2017
- Re: [Coq-Club] Easy question re: implicit parameters, Maxime Dénès, 09/15/2017
- RE: [Coq-Club] Easy question re: implicit parameters, Soegtrop, Michael, 09/15/2017
- RE: [Coq-Club] Easy question re: implicit parameters, Soegtrop, Michael, 09/18/2017
- Re: [Coq-Club] Easy question re: implicit parameters, Ralf Jung, 09/16/2017
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.