Hi Stefan, > this is a perfectly legal datatype and therefore should be handled by > the datatype package without prior "consolidation" or whatever, but > I think this case has just been overlooked when reimplementing the > definition of the size functions using the new infrastructure for > datatype interpretations. I'll try to find out what exactly goes wrong.
thanks for this offer. But this misperception has not only infected
size but all datatype tools using the
Datatype_Aux.interpret_construction combinator which assumes exactly the
same restriction. Therefore my proposal to internally provide a
consolidated view of the datatype specifications with type parameter
names made uniform, to handle the issue at one place and not in every
datatype package extension separately.
Cheers,
Florian
--
Home:
http://www.in.tum.de/~haftmann
PGP available:
http://home.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/haftmann/pgp/florian_haftmann_at_informatik_tu_muenchen_de
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Isabelle-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mailmanbroy.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/mailman/listinfo/isabelle-dev
