EDIT
Require Import Bool List ZArith.
Variable A: Type.
Inductive error :=
| Todo.
Inductive result (A : Type) : Type :=
Ok : A -> result A | Ko : error -> result A.
Variable bool_of_result : result A -> bool.
Variable rules : Type.
Variable boolean : Type.
Variable positiveInteger : Type.
Variable OK: result unit.
Definition dps := rules.
Inductive dpProof :=
| DpProof_depGraphProc : list
(dps * boolean * option (list positiveInteger) * option dpProof) -> dpProof.
Fixpoint dpProof' (R D: rules) (p: dpProof) {struct p}:=
match p with
| DpProof_depGraphProc cs => dpGraphProc R D cs
end
with dpGraphProc (R D: rules ) cs {struct cs} :=
match cs with
| nil => Ko unit Todo
| (_, _, _, op) :: cs' =>
match op with
| None => Ko unit Todo
| Some p2 => dpProof' R D p2
end
end.
I got an error message saying that: Recursive call to dpProof has principal argument equal to
"p2" instead of "cs'".
Recursive definition is:
"fun (R D : rules)
(cs : list
(dps * boolean * option (list positiveInteger) *
option dpProof)) =>
match cs with
| nil => Ko unit Todo
| (_, _, _, Some p2) :: _ => dpProof' R D p2
| (_, _, _, None) :: _ => OK
end".
If I do not use the mutual recursive and use the nested fixpoint, it will combine and pass the checker of termination. Here is the code that successfully combined.
Fixpoint dpProof' (R D: rules) (p: dpProof) {struct p}:=
match p with
| DpProof_depGraphProc cs =>
match cs with
| nil => Ko _ Todo
| (_, _, _, op) :: cs' =>
match op with
| None => Ko unit Todo
| Some p2 => dpProof' R D p2
end
end end.
I would like to understand deeper about the reason why it cannot pass the termination checker? Is it because they cannot guess the argument descreasing? Is there any way that I can use the mutually recursive to express my function dpGraphProc
?
Also How can I write the function dpGraphProc
that check in the whole list? Here I do not know how to use the argument cs'
.
Mutual recursion is to be used either with a single inductive data-type or with different inductive data-types that have been defined together in a single inductive definition. In your case, you are using polymorphic data-types prod (the type of pairs), list, and option which were already defined before dpProof.
The nested fixpoint approach does not have the restriction.