New issue
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
Fix issue #6930: Allow recursion on proofs again #6936
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't mind reverting the change, but people using --prop
should be aware that this implies an additional principle which is incompatible with impredicative Prop
. Perhaps you could add the comment from the test case to the user manual for Prop
too?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please see my objection here. I'm uneasy about allowing what is the termination "using the wrong formula to get the right answer" as default behaviour, though I would be fine with having the old behaviour under a flag for compatibility.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
After discussion in today's meeting we agreed that it's not worth including the fix for Prop since
-
The underlying issue in the termination checker would also affect impredicative Set, which is also consistent with "base Agda", and it was weird to fix one but not both;
-
If a data type is accepted under some flags, then its eliminator/recursor should also be accepted, without any extra flags.
So the revert sounds okay for now.
50c1e43
to
3ff92d3
Compare
TODO: