[Agda] [ANNOUNCE] Agda 2.6.1 release candidate 1

[mechvel at scico.botik.ru]

The below function _+ms_ satisfies the following property.

For each pattern in the third clause for +ms there exists a nonempty 
subset js
in the argument position set {1, 2} such that
(for all i <- js,  argument(i)  is structurally greater than  
argument(i)-on-RHS,
  while the arguments at all other positions do not change 
syntactically).

And by this rule, +ms is terminating.
And a generalization of this rule is implemented in Agda.

Am I missing something?

If it is all right, then Agda-2.6.1 needs to follow Agda-2.6.0.1 at this 
point.

?

--
SM


On 2019-12-30 21:36, mechvel at scico.botik.ru wrote:
> On 2019-12-22 14:41, Andres Sicard Ramirez wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> The Agda Team is very pleased to announce the first release candidate
>> of Agda 2.6.1. We plan to release 2.6.1 in three weeks.
>> [..]
> 
> This Agda-2.6.0.1.20191219 reports "Termination checking failed ..." 
> for
> 
> --------------------------------
> _+ms_ :  Op₂ (List Mon)
> []                  +ms mons'                  =  mons'
> mons                +ms []                     =  mons
> ((monᶜ a e) ∷ mons) +ms ((monᶜ b e') ∷ mons')  with comparePP e e'
> ...
>     | tri> _ _ _ =  (monᶜ a e)  ∷ (mons +ms ((monᶜ b e') ∷ mons'))
> ... | tri< _ _ _ =  (monᶜ b e') ∷ (((monᶜ a e) ∷ mons) +ms mons')
> ... | tri≈ _ _ _ =  (monᶜ (a + b)  e) ∷ (mons +ms mons')
> --------------------------------
> 
> while Agda-2.6.0.1 type-checks this.
> Which one is more correct?
> 
> Among the arguments for +ms on RHS the first one is smaller by
> construction than in LHS
> (for tri>), or the second is smaller by construction than in LHS (for 
> tri<),
> or each is smaller by construction than in LHS (for tri≈).
> 
> --
> SM
> _______________________________________________
> Agda mailing list
> Agda at lists.chalmers.se
> https://lists.chalmers.se/mailman/listinfo/agda