We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Issue by sweirich Tuesday Jun 25, 2019 at 10:43 GMT Originally opened as antalsz/hs-to-coq#127
It would be good if hs-to-coq could help distinguish whether added axioms are trivially safe or not. i.e.
Axiom bad : forall {a}, a.
vs
Axiom ok: forall {a}, {Default a} -> a. Axiom isUpper : Char -> bool. Axiom newtype : Type. Instance Default_newtype : Default newtype. Axiom str2new : String -> newtype.
The only tricky bit is that we have to approximate whether types are inhabited (i.e. whether default instances are available).
But it would good to be able to see in the edits file which axioms need more scrutiny.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
No branches or pull requests
Issue by sweirich
Tuesday Jun 25, 2019 at 10:43 GMT
Originally opened as antalsz/hs-to-coq#127
It would be good if hs-to-coq could help distinguish whether added axioms are trivially safe or not. i.e.
Axiom bad : forall {a}, a.
vs
The only tricky bit is that we have to approximate whether types are inhabited (i.e. whether default instances are available).
But it would good to be able to see in the edits file which axioms need more scrutiny.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: