(** Remark, the following corollaries morally hold:  Definition In_propositional_context (A:Type) := forall C:Prop, (A -> C) -> C.  Corollary constructive_definite_descr_in_prop_context_iff_fun_reification : In_propositional_context ConstructiveIndefiniteDescription <-> FunctionalChoice.  Corollary constructive_definite_descr_in_prop_context_iff_fun_reification : In_propositional_context ConstructiveDefiniteDescription <-> FunctionalRelReification.  but expecting [FunctionalChoice] (resp. [FunctionalRelReification]) to be applied on the same Type universes on both sides of the first (resp. second) equivalence breaks the stratification of universes. *)
(**********************************************************************)
(** * Excluded-middle + definite description => computational excluded-middle *)
(** The idea for the following proof comes from [[ChicliPottierSimpson02]] *)
(** Classical logic and axiom of unique choice (i.e. functional relation reification), as shown in [[ChicliPottierSimpson02]], implies the double-negation of excluded-middle in [Set] (which is incompatible with the impredicativity of [Set]).  We adapt the proof to show that constructive definite description transports excluded-middle from [Prop] to [Set].  [[ChicliPottierSimpson02]] Laurent Chicli, Loïc Pottier, Carlos Simpson, Mathematical Quotients and Quotient Types in Coq, Proceedings of TYPES 2002, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2646, Springer Verlag.  *)

Theorem constructive_definite_descr_excluded_middle :
(forall A : Type, ConstructiveDefiniteDescription_on A) ->
(forall P:Prop, P \/ ~ P) -> (forall P:Prop, {P} + {~ P}).