diff options
| author |  Hugo Herbelin <Hugo.Herbelin@inria.fr> | 2015-12-18 07:32:15 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Hugo Herbelin <Hugo.Herbelin@inria.fr> | 2016-06-18 13:07:22 +0200 |
| commit | a34c17e0e4600d0c466f19b64c3dfb39376981fd (patch) | |
| tree | 06aeab8a503b8892d2a1fc4d66bd5add15038dd0 /ltac/tacintern.ml | |
| parent | 42cbdfccf0c0500935d619dccaa00476690229f8 (diff) | |
Adding eintros to respect the e- prefix policy.
In pat%constr, creating new evars is now allowed only if "eintros" is
given, i.e. "intros" checks that no evars are created, and similarly
e.g. for "injection ... as ... pat%constr".
The form "eintros [...]" or "eintros ->" with the case analysis or
rewrite creating evars is now also supported.
This is not a commitment to say that it is good to have an e- modifier
to tactics. It is just to be consistent with the existing convention.
It seems to me that the "no e-" variants are good for beginners. However,
expert might prefer to use the e-variants by default. Opinions from
teachers and users would be useful.
To be possibly done: do that [= ...] work on hypotheses with side
conditions or parameters based on the idea that they apply the full
injection and not only the restriction of it to goals which are
exactly an equality, as it is today.
Diffstat (limited to 'ltac/tacintern.ml')
| -rw-r--r-- | ltac/tacintern.ml | 4 |
1 files changed, 2 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/ltac/tacintern.ml b/ltac/tacintern.ml index dc21fa885..79240d2e7 100644 --- a/ltac/tacintern.ml +++ b/ltac/tacintern.ml @@ -479,8 +479,8 @@ let clause_app f = function let rec intern_atomic lf ist x = match (x:raw_atomic_tactic_expr) with (* Basic tactics *) - | TacIntroPattern l -> - TacIntroPattern (List.map (intern_intro_pattern lf ist) l) + | TacIntroPattern (ev,l) -> + TacIntroPattern (ev,List.map (intern_intro_pattern lf ist) l) | TacApply (a,ev,cb,inhyp) -> TacApply (a,ev,List.map (intern_constr_with_bindings_arg ist) cb, Option.map (intern_in_hyp_as ist lf) inhyp) |