Closed amerikan closed 6 years ago
Not sure if this is the best channel to mention this, but....
I was going through the advanced walk through on the website, http://abella-prover.org/advanced-walkthrough.html There's a theorem referred as member_uniq.
member_uniq
At the very bottom there's a link to: http://abella-prover.org/examples/lambda-calculus/type-uniq/type-uniq.html On this page it is called as ctx_uniq.
ctx_uniq
It appears they're both the same exact thing. It threw me off for a bit. It would be good to just use one or the other for consistency.
Thanks. This should now be fixed.
Not sure if this is the best channel to mention this, but....
I was going through the advanced walk through on the website, http://abella-prover.org/advanced-walkthrough.html There's a theorem referred as
member_uniq
.At the very bottom there's a link to: http://abella-prover.org/examples/lambda-calculus/type-uniq/type-uniq.html On this page it is called as
ctx_uniq
.It appears they're both the same exact thing. It threw me off for a bit. It would be good to just use one or the other for consistency.