[Termtools] The behavior of new CeTA

[Akihisa Yamada]

Dear certified category participants,

as Johannes mentioned, new CeTA will read original input problems,
and certifies properties of THE input.

I propose to make the <input> field *optional* in CPF, so that the
source of inconsistency can be reduced (if you want).
Please react within a week if you don't immediately agree.

@complexity tools authors:
CPF's <input> field allowed you to specify the signature (constructors
and defined symbols). Old CeTA just trusted it and thus, it wouldn't
have detected if your tool claims a wrong signature.

Please keep in mind that such bugs can be revealed in this year's
competition.

Best regards,
Akihisa

-- 
Akihisa Yamada, Ph.D.
Computational Logic Group, Institute of Computer Science,
University of Innsbruck
http://cl-informatik.uibk.ac.at/~ayamada/