aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiffhomepage
path: root/proofs
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorGravatar Hugo Herbelin <Hugo.Herbelin@inria.fr>2018-02-17 22:59:32 +0100
committerGravatar Maxime Dénès <mail@maximedenes.fr>2018-03-08 21:58:31 +0100
commitb731022c022cfeae9203f6b10b4e1f68b85d9071 (patch)
tree582bb7c6d3a05c194514c6a5ee9397dee849a8a3 /proofs
parent61c9bd4bc14d3479a98c2b53adf1b86fa84f13bf (diff)
Adding tclPUTGIVENUP/tclPUTSHELF in Proofview.Unsafe.
Adding also tclSETSHELF/tclGETSHELF by consistency with tclSETGOALS/tclGETGOALS. However, I feel that this is too low-level to be exported as a "tcl". Doesn't a "tcl" mean that it is supposed to be used by common tactics? But is it reasonable that a common tactic can change and modify comb and shelf without passing by a level which e.g. checks that no goal is lost in the process. So, I would rather be in favor of removing tclSETGOALS/tclGETGOALS which are anyway aliases for Comb.get/Comb.set. Conversely, what is the right expected level of abstraction for proofview.ml?
Diffstat (limited to 'proofs')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions