coq-club AT inria.fr
Subject: The Coq mailing list
List archive
- From: Pierre-Marie Pédrot <pierre-marie.pedrot AT inria.fr>
- To: "jonikelee AT gmail.com" <jonikelee AT gmail.com>
- Cc: coq-club AT inria.fr
- Subject: Re: [Coq-Club] Can an Ltac2 tactic modify a top-level Ltac2 array?
- Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 17:49:34 +0100
On 06/01/2021 17:45, jonikelee AT gmail.com wrote:
> Why not provide both? They're both very useful for different purposes.
> Introduce the keyword "special" to distinguish when the binding is
> dynamic.
State is more expressive than reader, since you can implement the latter
with the former. So the question is rather if we want to give the full
power of state in the rebinding of global definitions. Typically,
limiting expressivity can be worthwhile for code modularity.
PMP
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- [Coq-Club] Can an Ltac2 tactic modify a top-level Ltac2 array?, jonikelee AT gmail.com, 01/05/2021
- Re: [Coq-Club] Can an Ltac2 tactic modify a top-level Ltac2 array?, Pierre-Marie Pédrot, 01/05/2021
- Re: [Coq-Club] Can an Ltac2 tactic modify a top-level Ltac2 array?, jonikelee AT gmail.com, 01/06/2021
- Re: [Coq-Club] Can an Ltac2 tactic modify a top-level Ltac2 array?, Pierre-Marie Pédrot, 01/06/2021
- Re: [Coq-Club] Can an Ltac2 tactic modify a top-level Ltac2 array?, jonikelee AT gmail.com, 01/06/2021
- Re: [Coq-Club] Can an Ltac2 tactic modify a top-level Ltac2 array?, Pierre-Marie Pédrot, 01/05/2021
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19+.