| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| ... | |
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
This allows a better control on the name to give to an evar and, in
particular, to address the issue about naming produced by "epose
proof" in one of the comment of Zimmi48 at PR #248 (see file names.v).
Incidentally updating output of Show output test (evar numbers shifted).
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
This is the continuation of #244, we now deprecate `CErrors.error`,
the single entry point in Coq is `user_err`.
The rationale is to allow for easier grepping, and to ease a future
cleanup of error messages. In particular, we would like to
systematically classify all error messages raised by Coq and be sure
they are properly documented.
We restore the two functions removed in #244 to improve compatibility,
but mark them deprecated.
|
| |\ \ |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
This completes the Loc.ghost removal, the idea is to gear the API
towards optional, but uniform, location handling.
We don't print <unknown> anymore in the case there is no location.
This is what the test suite expects.
The old printing logic for located items was a bit inconsistent as
it sometimes printed <unknown> and other times it printed nothing as
the caller checked for `is_ghost` upstream.
|
| |/ /
| |
| |
| | |
Now it is a private field, locations are optional.
|
| |\ \ |
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
All functions where actually called with the second argument of the pending
problem being the current evar map. We simply remove this useless and
error-prone second component.
|
| |\| | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | |\| |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
named in the original term.
Useful at least for debugging, useful to give a better message than
"this placeholder", even if in the loc is known in this case.
|
| |/| |
| |/ |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Universes are kept in normal form w.r.t. equality but not the <=
relation, so the previous check worked almost always but was actually
too strict! In cases like (max(Set,u) = u) when u is declared >= Set it
was failing to find an equality. Applying the KISS principle:
u = v <-> u <= v /\ v <= u.
Fix invariant breakage that triggered the discovery of the check_eq bug as well. No algebraic universes should appear in a term position (on the left of
a colon in a typing judgment), this was not the case when an algebraic
universe instantiated an evar that appeared in the term. We force their
universe variable status to change in refresh_universes to avoid this.
Fix ind sort inference: Use syntactic universe equality for inductive
sort inference instead of check_leq (which now correctly takes
constraints into account) and simplify code
|
| | | |
|
| |\| |
|
| | | |
|
| |\| |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
When printing evar constraints, we ensure that every variable from the
rel context has a name.
|
| |\ \ |
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
composition operator.
Short story:
This pull-request:
(1) removes the definition of the "right-to-left" function composition operator
(2) adds the definition of the "left-to-right" function composition operator
(3) rewrites the code relying on "right-to-left" function composition to rely on "left-to-right" function composition operator instead.
Long story:
In mathematics, function composition is traditionally denoted with ∘ operator.
Ocaml standard library does not provide analogous operator under any name.
Batteries Included provides provides two alternatives:
_ % _
and
_ %> _
The first operator one corresponds to the classical ∘ operator routinely used in mathematics.
I.e.:
(f4 % f3 % f2 % f1) x ≜ (f4 ∘ f3 ∘ f2 ∘ f1) x
We can call it "right-to-left" composition because:
- the function we write as first (f4) will be called as last
- and the function write as last (f1) will be called as first.
The meaning of the second operator is this:
(f1 %> f2 %> f3 %> f4) x ≜ (f4 ∘ f3 ∘ f2 ∘ f1) x
We can call it "left-to-right" composition because:
- the function we write as first (f1) will be called first
- and the function we write as last (f4) will be called last
That is, the functions are written in the same order in which we write and read them.
I think that it makes sense to prefer the "left-to-right" variant because
it enables us to write functions in the same order in which they will be actually called
and it thus better fits our culture
(we read/write from left to right).
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
"Context.Named.{to,of}_rel_decl"
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
"Context.{Rel,Named}.fold_constr"
|
| | | | |
|
| | |/
|/|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
mainly concerning referring to "Context.{Rel,Named}.get_{id,value,type}" functions.
If multiple modules define a function with a same name, e.g.:
Context.{Rel,Named}.get_type
those calls were prefixed with a corresponding prefix
to make sure that it is obvious which function is being called.
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
Suggested by @ppedrot
|
| |/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In some cases prior to this patch, there were two cases for the same
error function, one taking a location, the other not.
We unify them by using an option parameter, in the line with recent
changes in warnings and feedback.
This implies a bit of clean up in some places, but more importantly, is
the preparation for subsequent patches making `Loc.location` opaque,
change that could be use to improve modularity and allow a more
functional implementation strategy --- for example --- of the
beautifier.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Delimit the scope of the failure to ease potential need for debugging
the debugging printer.
Protect against one of the causes of failure (calling
get_family_sort_of with non-synchronized sigma).
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
module)
For the moment, there is an Error module in compilers-lib/ocamlbytecomp.cm(x)a
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
For better error messages. The API change is
backwards compatible, using a new optional argument.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |\ |
|
| | | |
|
| |/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Originally, rel-context was represented as:
Context.rel_context = Names.Name.t * Constr.t option * Constr.t
Now it is represented as:
Context.Rel.t = LocalAssum of Names.Name.t * Constr.t
| LocalDef of Names.Name.t * Constr.t * Constr.t
Originally, named-context was represented as:
Context.named_context = Names.Id.t * Constr.t option * Constr.t
Now it is represented as:
Context.Named.t = LocalAssum of Names.Id.t * Constr.t
| LocalDef of Names.Id.t * Constr.t * Constr.t
Motivation:
(1) In "tactics/hipattern.ml4" file we define "test_strict_disjunction"
function which looked like this:
let test_strict_disjunction n lc =
Array.for_all_i (fun i c ->
match (prod_assum (snd (decompose_prod_n_assum n c))) with
| [_,None,c] -> isRel c && Int.equal (destRel c) (n - i)
| _ -> false) 0 lc
Suppose that you do not know about rel-context and named-context.
(that is the case of people who just started to read the source code)
Merlin would tell you that the type of the value you are destructing
by "match" is:
'a * 'b option * Constr.t (* worst-case scenario *)
or
Named.Name.t * Constr.t option * Constr.t (* best-case scenario (?) *)
To me, this is akin to wearing an opaque veil.
It is hard to figure out the meaning of the values you are looking at.
In particular, it is hard to discover the connection between the value
we are destructing above and the datatypes and functions defined
in the "kernel/context.ml" file.
In this case, the connection is there, but it is not visible
(between the function above and the "Context" module).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now consider, what happens when the reader see the same function
presented in the following form:
let test_strict_disjunction n lc =
Array.for_all_i (fun i c ->
match (prod_assum (snd (decompose_prod_n_assum n c))) with
| [LocalAssum (_,c)] -> isRel c && Int.equal (destRel c) (n - i)
| _ -> false) 0 lc
If the reader haven't seen "LocalAssum" before, (s)he can use Merlin
to jump to the corresponding definition and learn more.
In this case, the connection is there, and it is directly visible
(between the function above and the "Context" module).
(2) Also, if we already have the concepts such as:
- local declaration
- local assumption
- local definition
and we describe these notions meticulously in the Reference Manual,
then it is a real pity not to reinforce the connection
of the actual code with the abstract description we published.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
longer stable w.r.t. equality constraints as the universe graph will
choose different canonical levels depending on the equalities given to
it (l = r vs r = l).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Instead of accumulating constraints which are not present in the original
graph, we parametrize the equality function by a function actually merging
those constraints in the current graph. This prevents doing the work twice.
|
Hugo Herbelin
Emilio Jesus Gallego Arias
Gaetan Gilbert
Pierre-Marie Pédrot
Matthieu Sozeau
Matej Kosik
Matej Kosik
Guillaume Melquiond
Pierre Letouzey
Matthieu Sozeau