| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
... | |
| |_|_|_|_|_|/
|/| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
We export `Cerrors.EvaluatedError` so plugins and STM consumers can
catch it.
It took me a while to make my mind on this one, but now I am convinced
this is the right thing to do. (Another possibility is to remove
`EvaluatedError` altogether).
The rationale is as follows: when using `Stm.{add,observe}` it
will be frequent for Coq to raise a public-facing exception, however the
toplevel will wrap it into the `EvaluatedError`.
Thus, we get exceptions that we are supposed to handle, but its wrapping
in `EvaluatedError` prevents us from a more meaningful exception
handling: we are stuck with calling the printer.
In particular, this allows SerAPI/jsCoq to provide proper serialization
of most public exceptions.
|
| | | | | | | |
|
| |/| | | | |
|/| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
Conflicts:
Makefile.common
|
| | | | | | | |
|
|\ \ \ \ \ \ \
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
Add -o option to coqc
|
|\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Documentation also updated.
|
|\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
|
|\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
This is the "error resiliency" mode for STM
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
They can still be used at the toplevel.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
This allows to write things like this:
split; 2: intro _; exact I
or like this:
eexists ?[x]; ?[x]: exact 0; trivial
This has the side-effect on making the '?' before '[x]' mandatory.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| |_|_|_|_|_|_|_|/ /
|/| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
You can now write [[1, 3-5]:tac.] to apply [tac] on the subgoals
numbered 1 and 3 to 5.
|
|\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
This reverts commit 45748e4efae8630cc13b0199dfcc9803341e8cd8.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
This fixes the declarations of constraints, universes
and assumptions:
- global constraints can refer to global universes only,
- polymorphic universes, constraints and assumptions can only be
declared inside sections, when all the section's
variables/universes are polymorphic as well.
- monomorphic assumptions may only be declared in section contexts
which are not parameterized by polymorphic universes/assumptions.
Add fix for part 1 of bug #4816
|
|\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| |_|_|_|_|/ / / / / / /
|/| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
This avoids postponing constraints which will surely produce
an occur-check and allow to backtrack on first-order unifications
producing those constraints directly (e.g. to apply eta).
(fixes HoTT/HoTT with 8.5).
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
non-recursive notations (#4815).
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Function default_fail was always part of an ise_try. Its associated
error message was anyway thrown away. It is then irrelevant and could
be made simpler.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
The tentative fix in f9695eb4b (which I was afraid it might be too
strong, since it was implying failing more often) indeed broke other
things (see #4813).
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
conversion on closed terms.
This will be useful to discriminate problems involving the "with"
clause and which fails by lack of information or for deeper reasons.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
This can happen with the "with" clause (see e.g. #4782), but also with
recursive calls in first-order unification (e.g. "?n a a b = f a" when
a matching between "b" and "a" is tried before expanding f).
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Trying to now catch all unification errors, but without a clear view
at whether some errors could be tolerated at the point of checking the
type of the binding.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Don't know however what should be the right guard to this try. Now
using catchable_exception, but even in 8.4, Failure was caught, which
is strange.
|
|\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
complexity comes before tests in O(n) complexity.
|