| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
| |
simplifying and generalizing the grammar entries for injection,
discriminate and simplify_eq.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
simpler re-printing of assert.
Also fixing the precedence for printing "by" clause.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Note that this breaks the compatibility, in a beneficial way I believe. Tactics
defined in strict mode (i.e. through Ltac foo := ...) may not do an introduction
on a local identifier anymore. They must use the "fresh" primitive instead.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
This reverts commit bde36d4b00185065628324d8ca71994f84eae244.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
allows for a simpler re-printing of assert.
Also fixing the precedence for printing "by" clause.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
variables" when matching over "{v : _ | _ & _}" which hides twice the
binding "fun v" since it is "sig2 (fun v => _) (fun v => _)".
Computing the bound variables statically at internalisation time
rather than every time at interpretation time. This cannot hurt even
if I don't know how to deal with the "notation" problem of a single
bound variable actually hiding two: at the current time, the notation
is printed only if the two variables are identical (see #4592), so,
with this semantics the warning should not be printed, but we lost the
information that we are coming from a notation; if #4592 were
addressed, then one of the binding should be alpha-renamed if they
differ, so collision should be solved by choosing the variable name
which is not renamed, but the matching algorithm should then be aware
of what the notation printing algorithm is doing... maybe not the most
critical thing at the current time.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This type was actually only used by the debug printer of tactics, and only
for atomic tactics. Furthermore, that type was asymmetric, as the underlying
tacexpr type was set to be glob_tactic, when the semantics would have required
a Val.t type.
Furthermore, this type is absent from every contrib I have seen, which hints
again in favour of its lack of meaning.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This was redundant with the wit_uconstr generic argument, so there was no real
point on keeping it there.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
This was historically used together with the <:tactic< ... >> quotation to insert
foreign code as $foo, but it actually only survived in the implementation of Tauto.
With the removal of the quotation feature, this is now totally obsolete.
|
| |\ |
|
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
The TacAlias node now only contains the arguments fed to the tactic notation.
The binding variables are worn by the tactic representation in Tacenv.
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
This commit has deep consequences in term of tactic evaluation,
as it allows to pass any tac_arg to ML and alias tactics rather than
mere generic arguments. This makes the evaluation much more uniform,
and in particular it removes the special evaluation function for notations.
This last point may break some notations out there unluckily.
I had to treat in an ad-hoc way the tactic(...) entry of tactic notations
because it is actually not interpreted as a generic argument but rather
as a proper tactic expression instead.
There is for now no syntax to pass any tactic argument to a given ML or
notation tactic, but this should come soon.
Also fixes bug #3849 en passant.
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| |\| |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| |\| |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Collecting the bound variables is now done on the glob_constr, before
interpretation, so that only variables given explicitly by the user
are used for binding bound variables.
|
| |\| |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| |\| |
|
| | | |
|
| |/
|
|
|
| |
This will allow to get rid of the fragile mechanism of discriminating which
entry to call depending on the dynamic type of its arguments.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
there is no focused goal.
The 'g' is for "global". The arguments are the same as [fail]. Beware: [let x := constr:… in tac] is a goal-local operation regardless of whether [tac] is goal-local or not.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
This was due to the unqualified uses of "Lazy" being disambiguated in different manners. I just changed the constructor name to "Select".
Fixes #3877.
|
| |
|
|
| |
[multimatch … with …] returns every possible successes: every matching branch and every successes of these matching branch, so that subsequent tactics can backtrack as well.
|
| |
|
|
| |
[tryif t then t2 else t3] behaves like [t;t2] if [t] has at least one success, or [t3] otherwise. It generalises [t||t3] as failures from [t2] will not be caught.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Re-add, in fact, since it was there in v8.3 but was dead code in v8.4 hence was deleted. It is necessary for printing info traces, however. A lot of the code had changed since v8.3, so adapting the code was non-trivial and some thing may be printed wrong.
It require re-adding a [tacexpr] argument to [gen_tactic_expr]. It had been made obsolete by the deletion of [pr_tactic] in v8.4 (even though printing [glob_tactic_expr] in a [tactic_expr] is only an approximation of the appropriate behaviour).
A new kind of argument, [delayed_constr], has made an appearance between v8.4 and trunk, and it differs from [constr] in the typed level. So it required its own parameter in [gen_tactic_expr]. At this point [delayed_constr] are printed in the globalised level because they are interpreted as closures. Maybe a better approximation is warranted.
Both in the printing of rewrite and induction, I changed a [pr_lconstr] (note the 'l') by a [pr_dconstr]. It is probably not quite correct, and may need fixing (adding a [pr_dlconstr] to [Pptactics] I guess?).
|
Hugo Herbelin
Cyprien Mangin
Pierre-Marie Pédrot
Maxime Dénès
Arnaud Spiwack