From 0618ca6ac08311a1325cb1860d8078ddfdb9dac0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Yann Herklotz Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 19:02:07 +0100 Subject: Add a comment to recursive definitions --- main.tex | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'main.tex') diff --git a/main.tex b/main.tex index 5fe26c7..4e2dfb9 100644 --- a/main.tex +++ b/main.tex @@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ based on what they evaluate to. For case I think that would end up being a three \JP{I suppose this would essentially be an ``interpreter'' style semantics but we can prove equivalence pretty easily.} -\YH{To add to that, I used to have both in the Coq code, but commented the recursive definition out, and now only have the inductive definition, which is basically what I copy pasted here.} \JW{Fair enough. Whatever you think ends up being the easiest to read and understand, really. There's something to be said for staying close to the Coq definitions anyway.} +\YH{To add to that, I used to have both in the Coq code, but commented the recursive definition out, and now only have the inductive definition, which is basically what I copy pasted here.} \JW{Fair enough. Whatever you think ends up being the easiest to read and understand, really. There's something to be said for staying close to the Coq definitions anyway.} \YH{I have added more rules, we can always switch from one to the other now. One more thing I noticed though is that recursive definitions will need an \texttt{option} type.} \begin{align} \text{srun}\ f\ s\ \mathtt{Vskip} &= \mathtt{Some}\ s\\ -- cgit