Open andrejbauer opened 7 years ago
I agree. But if we don't put the parameter in the name, how can we distinguish between H_Con \> P
and H_Con Q
? Same way as now or a different notation?
I can answer that once I understand what H_con P
is :-)
H_Con P
makes constructor terms of P
. H_rec P
is terms of depth 1 using the constructor c
from the HIT and arguments from T
. For H_Con
we look at terms of depth at most n
.
There is currently quite a lot of confusion in the paper. I am going to list the problems I see, but it's probably a bad idea to try to fix each one separately without thinking of the paper as a whole. Here's one.
In Section 3, the higher inductive types
H_rec
,H_Con^n
etc. are parameterized byP
. This does not make sense, first becauseP
is an expression schema, and also because we only ever introduce non-parameterized types.I also find the entire construction very hard to follow because of the notation. It would be better to fix
P
andn
and all the other things that the type depends on, and then not mention them in the names of constructions.