Comments on: Retraction on Coq and lists http://existentialtype.net/2007/12/18/retraction-on-coq-and-lists/ For People Who Like Type and Types Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:04:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: washburn http://existentialtype.net/2007/12/18/retraction-on-coq-and-lists/comment-page-1/#comment-20817 washburn Tue, 08 Jan 2008 12:57:43 +0000 http://existentialtype.net/2007/12/18/retraction-on-coq-and-lists/#comment-20817 No I have not tried using the new »Function« form of definition. I might have been able to use it in the places I was running into problems, but I figured that if I was having that much difficulty with really simple functions, then I was probably on the wrong track. In retrospect, I think the problems may have also been caused by the fact that the typechecker will apparently unfold functions defined using »Definition«, but not ones defined using »Fixpoint«. No I have not tried using the new »Function« form of definition. I might have been able to use it in the places I was running into problems, but I figured that if I was having that much difficulty with really simple functions, then I was probably on the wrong track. In retrospect, I think the problems may have also been caused by the fact that the typechecker will apparently unfold functions defined using »Definition«, but not ones defined using »Fixpoint«.

]]> By: Andrew http://existentialtype.net/2007/12/18/retraction-on-coq-and-lists/comment-page-1/#comment-19398 Andrew Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:28:33 +0000 http://existentialtype.net/2007/12/18/retraction-on-coq-and-lists/#comment-19398 Let the good times roll! Have you tried using the termination ordering stuff for functions that was added in 8.1? I think it generates a separate lemma you prove to show termination. Haven't tried it myself... Let the good times roll!

Have you tried using the termination ordering stuff for functions that was added in 8.1? I think it generates a separate lemma you prove to show termination. Haven’t tried it myself…

]]>