| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |\
| |
| |
| | |
Was PR#257: [checker] Fix/fine tune printing.
|
| |\ \ |
|
| | |\ \
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Was PR#293: Fix #4762 (eauto weaker than auto).
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
This is a quick fix. The Metasyntax module should be thoroughly revised
in trunk, because it starts featuring a lot of spaghetti code and redundant
data.
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
When a proof is 're-opened', the Qed node does not change.
Still the STM has to install the old state (where only
the future proof has to be updated). This bit was missing.
Why was it working: the bug happens only if you
reopen the very last proof, i.e. there is no
sentence that stays valid after the Qed. If there
is such a sentence, its state was computed correctly
before, and is not changed. If it is the very last,
then the next state is based on the wrong one...
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
It seems warnings are not taken into account in output/
tests.
|
| |\ \ \ \ |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
Universe context not properly declared. Improve API
and code in declare.ml to allow declaration of universe contexts,
used by declaration of universes and constraints (separately).
|
| |\ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
in error messages
|
| | | | | | | |
|
| | | | |/ / |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
With this command line flag one can profile ltac in files
/and/ trim the results without actually touching the files.
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | |/ / /
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
This avoids leakage of universes. Also makes
Program Lemma/Fact work again, it tries to solve the
remaining evars using the obligation tactic.
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
When inserting a character in an already processed buffer, a message is
sent to Coq so that the proof is backtracked and the character is
inserted. If a second character is inserted while Coq is still busy with
the first message, the action is canceled, but the signal is no longer
dropped so that the second character is properly inserted.
|
| |/ / /
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
This allows to define on purpose the very same notation in different
files, as currently the notations for *, +, - in Nat.v and Peano.v
(with the first one using variables n and m and the second one using
the default variables used by Infix, namely x and y).
This makes also the "notation-overridden" warning less enigmatic
facing two notations which are the same up to the choice of names.
|
| | | | |
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
This assertion checked that two arguments in the same position were equal,
but in fact, since one might have already been reduced, they are only
convertible (which is too costly to check in an assertion).
|
| |\ \ \
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Was PR#232: Fix the parsing of goal selectors.
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
The default value of the warnings flag was printed as an empty string,
now replaced by "default".
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| |\ \ \ \
| | |/ /
| |/| | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
It seems we have no grammar rule that parses floats, so I'm
parsing an integer, but the whole machinery supports floats.
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Importing VectorNotations breaks `; []`. So we make sure it's not
imported by defualt. Some files might be required to `Import
VectorDef.VectorNotations` rather than just `Import VectorNotations`.
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Also delimit vector_scope with vector, so that people can write %vector
without having to delimit it themselves.
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
The no-inversion and maximal abstraction over dependencies now
supports abstraction over goal variables rather than only on "rel"
variables. In particular, it now works consistently using
"intro H; refine (match H with ... end)" or
"refine (fun H => match H with ... end)".
By doing so, we ensure that all three strategies are tried in all
situations where a return clause has to be inferred, even in the
context of a "refine".
See antepenultimate commit for discussion.
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
even when no type constraint is given.
This no-inversion and maximal abstraction over dependencies in (rel)
variables heuristic was used only when a type constraint was given.
By doing so, we ensure that all three strategies "inversion with
dependencies as evars", "no-inversion and maximal abstraction over
dependencies in (rel) variables", "no-inversion and no abstraction
over dependencies" are tried in all situations where a return clause
has to be inferred.
See penultimate commit for discussion.
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
The no-inversion no-dependency heuristic was used only in the absence
of type constraint. We may now use it also in the presence of a type
constraint.
See previous commit for discussion.
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
As noted by Jason Gross on coq-club (Aug 18, 2016), the "small
inversion" heuristic is not used consistently depending on whether the
variables in the type constraint are Rel or Var.
This commit simply gives uniformly preference to the inversion of the
predicate along the indices of the type over other heuristics.
The next three commits will improve further a uniform use of the
different heuristics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some extra comments on how to go further with the inference
of the return predicate:
The "small inversion" heuristic build_inversion_problem (1) is
characterized by two features:
- small inversion properly speaking (a), i.e. that is for a match on
t:I params p1(u11..u1p1) ... pn(un1..unpn) with pi exposing the
constructor structure of the indices of the type of t, a return
clause of the form "fun x1..xn (y:I params x1..xn) => match x1..xn y with
| p1(z11..z1p1) ... pn(zn1..znpn) => ?T@{z11..znpn}
| _ => IDProp
end" is used,
- the dependent subterms in the external type constraint U are replaced
by existential variables (b) which can be filled either by projecting
(i.e. installing a dependency) or imitating (i.e. no dependency);
this is obtained by solving the constraint ?T@{u11..unpn} == U by
setting ?T@{z11..znpn} := U'(...?wij@{zij:=uij}...) where U has been
written under the form U'(...uij...) highlighting all occurrences of
each of the uij occurring in U; otherwise said the problem is reduced to
the question of instantiating each wij, deciding whether wij@{zij} := zij
(projection) or wij@{zij} := uij (imitation) [There may be different
way to expose the uij in U, e.g. in the presence of overlapping, or of
evars in U; this is left undetermined].
The two other heuristics used are:
- prepare_predicate_from_arsign_tycon (2): takes the external type
constraint U and decides that each subterm of the form xi or y for a
match on "y:I params x1 ... xn" is dependent; otherwise said, it
corresponds to the degenerated form of (1) where
- no constructor structure is exposed (i.e. each pi is trivial)
- only uij that are Rel are replaced by an evar ?wij and this evar is
directly instantiated by projection (hence creating a dependency),
- simple use of of an evar in case no type constraint is given (3):
this evar is not dependent on the indices nor on the term to match.
Heuristic (1) is not strictly more powerful than other heuristics
because of (at least) two weaknesses.
- The first weakness is due to feature (b), i.e. to letting
unification decide whether these evars have to create a dependency
(projection) or not (imitation).
In particular, the heuristic (2) gives priority to systematic
abstraction over the dependencies (i.e. giving priority to
projection over imitation) and it can then be better as the
following example (from RelationClasses.v) shows:
Fixpoint arrows (l : Tlist) (r : Type) : Type :=
match l with
| Tnil => r
| A :: l' => A -> arrows l' r
end.
Fixpoint predicate_all (l : Tlist) : arrows l Prop -> Prop :=
match l with
| Tnil => fun f => f
| A :: tl => fun f => forall x : A, predicate_all tl (f x)
end.
Using (1) fails. It proposes the predicate
"fun l' => arrows ?l[l':=l'] Prop" so that typing the first branch
leads to unify "arrows ?l[l:=Tnil] Prop == Prop", a problem about
which evarconv unification is not able (yet!) to see what are the
two possible solutions. Using (2) works. It instead directly
suggests that the predicate is "fun l => arrows l Prop" is used, so
that unification is not needed.
Even if in practice the (2) is good (and hence could be added to
(1)), it is not universally better. Consider e.g.
y:bool,H1:P y,H2:P y,f:forall y, P y -> Q y |-
match y as z return Q y with
| true => f y H1
| false => f y H2
end : Q y
There is no way to type it with clause "as z return Q z" even if
trying to generalize H1 and H2 so that they get type P z.
- A second weakness is due to the interaction between small inversion
and constructors having a type whose indices havex a less refined
constructor structure than in the term to match, as in:
Inductive I : nat -> Set :=
| C1 : forall n : nat, listn n -> I n
| C2 : forall n : nat, I n -> I n.
Check (fun x : I 0 => match x with
| C1 n l => 0
| C2 n c => 0
end).
where the inverted predicate is "in I n return match n with 0 => ?T | _ => IDProp end"
but neither C1 nor C2 have fine enough types so that n becomes
constructed. There is a generic solution to that kind of situation which
is to compile the above into
Check (fun x : I 0 => match x with
| C1 n l => match n with 0 => 0 | _ -> id end
| C2 n c => match n with 0 => 0 | _ -> id end
end).
but this is not implemented yet.
In the absence of this refinement, heuristic (3) can here work
better.
So, the current status of the claim is that for (1) to be strictly
more powerful than other current heuristics, work has to be done
- (A) at the unification level (by either being able to reduce problems of
the form "match ?x[constructor] with ... end = a-rigid-term", or, at
worst, by being able to use the heuristic favoring projecting for such
a problem), so that it is better than (2),
- (B) at the match compilation level, by enforcing that, in each branch,
the corresponding constructor is refined so has to match (or
discriminate) the constraints given by the type of the term to
match, and hence being better than (3).
Moreover, (2) and (3) are disjoint. Here is an example which (3) can
solve but not (2) (and (1) cannot because of (B)). [To be fixed in
next commit.]
Inductive I : bool -> bool -> Type := C : I true true | D x : I x x.
Check fun z P Q (y:I true z) (H1 H2:P y) (f:forall y, P y -> Q y z) =>
match y with
| C => f y H1
| D _ => f y H2
end : Q y z.
Indeed, (2) infers "as y' in I b z return Q y z" which does not work.
Here is an example which (2) can solve but not (3) (and (1) cannot
because of (B) again). [To be fixed in 2nd next commit].
Check fun z P Q (y:I true z) (H1 H2:P y) (f:forall y z, P y -> Q y z) =>
match y with
| C => f y true H1
| D b => f y b H2
end : Q y z.
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
This fixes the stack overflow part of the bug, even if the tactic is still quite
slow. The offending functions have been written in a tail-recursive way.
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
This bug was seemingly introduced on purpose by commit 9c5ea63 in 2001. It
seems that the original motivation was to deactivate a warning when overriding
the default loadpath binding of the current directory, but in the end it made
it non-overridable.
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
It seems that such options were adding the considered path to the ML loadpath
as well, which is not what is documented, and does not provide an atomic way
to manipulate Coq loadpaths.
|
| | | | | |
|
Maxime Dénès
Cyprien Mangin
Pierre-Marie Pédrot
Enrico Tassi
Matthieu Sozeau
Hugo Herbelin
Yves Bertot
Pierre Letouzey
Guillaume Melquiond
Jason Gross