| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Instead of modifying exceptions to wear additional information, we instead use
a dedicated type now. All exception-using functions were modified to support
this new type, in particular Future's fix_exn-s and the tactic monad.
To solve the problem of enriching exceptions at raise time and recover this
data in the try-with handler, we use a global datastructure recording the
given piece of data imperatively that we retrieve in the try-with handler.
We ensure that such instrumented try-with destroy the data so that there
may not be confusion with another exception. To further harden the correction
of this structure, we also check for pointer equality with the last raised
exception.
The global data structure is not thread-safe for now, which is incorrect as
the STM uses threads and enriched exceptions. Yet, we splitted the patch in
two parts, so that we do not introduce dependencies to the Thread library
immediatly. This will allow to revert only the second patch if ever we
switch to OCaml-coded lightweight threads.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
[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.
|
| |
|
|
| |
You can write 'simpl -[plus minus] div2'. Simpl does not use it for now.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Documentation also updated.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
reference" and "simpl pattern" in the code (maybe we should have
merged them instead, but I finally decided to enforce their
difference, even if some compatibility is to be preversed - the idea
is that at some time "simpl reference" would only call a weak-head
simpl (or eventually cbn), leading e.g. to reduce 2+n into S(1+n)
rather than S(S(n)) which could be useful for better using induction
hypotheses.
In the process we also implement the following:
- 'simpl "+"' is accepted to reduce all applicative subterms whose
head symbol is written "+" (in the toplevel scope); idem for
vm_compute and native_compute
- 'simpl reference' works even if reference has maximally inserted
implicit arguments (this solves the "simpl fst" incompatibility)
- compatibility of ltac expressions referring to vm_compute and
native_compute with functor application should now work (i.e.
vm_compute and native_compute are now taken into account in
tacsubst.ml)
- for compatibility, "simpl eq" (assuming no maximal implicit args in
eq) or "simpl @eq" to mean "simpl (eq _ _)" are still allowed.
By the way, is "mul" on nat defined optimally? "3*n" simplifies to
"n+(n+(n+0))". Are there some advantages of this compared to have it
simplified to "n+n+n" (i.e. to "(n+n)+n").
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
by hopefully computing the right position where to reinit an empty
level. Also removing obsolete comment.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Called with [Info n tac], runs [tac] and prints its info trace unfolding [n] level of tactic names ([0] for no unfolding at all).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
clause; extended it so that an induction over "x" is considered
generic when the clause has the form "in H |-" (w/o the conclusion)
and x does not occur in the conclusion.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The main change is that selection of subterm is made similar whether
the given term is fully applied or not.
- The selection of subterm now works as follows depending on whether
the "at" is given, of whether the subterm is fully applied or not,
and whether there are incompatible subterms matching the pattern. In
particular, we have:
"at" given
| subterm fully applied
| | incompatible subterms
| | |
Y Y - it works like in 8.4
Y N - this was broken in 8.4 ("at" was ineffective and it was finding
all subterms syntactically equal to the first one which matches)
N Y Y it now finds all subterms like the first one which matches
while in 8.4 it used to fail (I hope it is not a too risky in-draft
for a semantics we would regret...) (e.g. "destruct (S _)" on
goal "S x = S y + S x" now selects the two occurrences of "S x"
while it was failing before)
N Y N it works like in 8.4
N N - it works like in 8.4, selecting all subterms like the
first one which matches
- Note that the "historical" semantics, when looking for a subterm, to
select all subterms that syntactically match the first subterm to
match the pattern (looking from left to right) is now internally called
"like first".
- Selection of subterms can now find the type by pattern-matching (useful e.g.
for "induction (nat_rect _ _ _ _)")
- A version of Unification.w_unify w/o any conversion is used for
finding the subterm: it could be easily replaced by an other
matching algorithm.
In particular, "destruct H" now works on a goal such as "H:True -> x<=y |- P y".
Secondary change is in the interpretation of terms with existential
variables:
- When several arguments are given, interpretation is delayed at the
time of execution
- Because we aim at eventually accepting "edestruct c" with unresolved
holes in c, we need the sigma obtained from c to be an extension of
the sigma of the tactics, while before, we just type-checked c
independently of the sigma of the tactic
- Finishing the resolution of evars (using type classes, candidates,
pending conversion problems) is made slightly cleaner: it now takes
three states: a term is evaluated in state sigma, leading to state
sigma' >= sigma, with evars finally solved in state sigma'' >=
sigma'; we solve evars in the diff of sigma' and sigma and report
the solution in sigma''
- We however renounce to give now a success semantics to "edestruct c"
when "c" has unresolved holes, waiting instead for a decision on
what to do in the case of a similar eapply (see mail to coqdev).
An auxiliary change is that an "in" clause can be attached to each component
of a "destruct t, u, v", etc.
Incidentally, make_abstraction does not do evar resolution itself any longer.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The problem is that "?[" makes the lexer glue "?" and "[" into
a single token but in ssr "?" (iteration) and "[" (rewrite pattern
delimiter) are often close, but they are parsed by very hard to
refactor grammar entries.
To consider:
- check the adjacency of the two symbols looking at the loc to
parse exactly the same sentences as before this patch
- change syntax completely, e.g. "(_ as id)"
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
I forgot to tell that we are again at the beginning of a line after a
bullet.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
(the action is "clear").
Added subst_intropattern which was missing since the introduction of
ApplyOn intro patterns.
Still to do: make "intros _ ?id" working without interferences when
"id" is precisely the internal name used for hypotheses to discard.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
will name the goal id; writing ?[?id] will use the first
fresh name available based with prefix id.
Tactics intro, rename, change, ... from logic.ml now preserve goal
name; cut preserves goal name on its main premise.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
so that one can retrieve them and pass them to third party tools (i.e.
print the AST with the notations attached to the nodes concerned).
Available syntax:
- all in one:
Notation "a /\ b" := ... (format "...", format "latex" "#1 \wedge #2").
- a posteriori:
Format Notation "a /\ b" "latex" "#1 \wedge #2".
|
| |
|
|
| |
as a disjunctive intropattern.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
of resulution for goals whose head is "ref". + means the argument
is an input and shouldn't contain an evar, otherwise resolution
fails. This generalizes the Typeclasses Strict Resolution option
which prevents resolution to fire on underconstrained typeclass
constraints, now the criterion can be applied to specific parameters.
Also cleanup auto/eauto code, uncovering a potential backwards
compatibility issue: in cases the goal contains existentials, we
never use the discrimination net in auto/eauto. We should try to
set this on once the contribs are stabilized (the stdlib goes through
when the dnet is used in these cases).
|
| |
|
|
| |
in instances.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
instances still to do). Using heuristics to name after the quantifier
name it comes. Also added a "sigma" to almost all printing functions.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Left a README, just in case someone will discover the remnants of it
decades from now.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
They were almost identical, except some unused misplaced coercion symbol in the non-[Record] rule.
|
| |
|
| |
Dead code formerly used by the now defunct [autoinstances].
|
| |
|
|
| |
Just like the [Record] keyword allows only non-recursive records.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Coq now accepts the [Universes u1 ... un] syntax.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
"pat/term" for "apply term on current_hyp as pat".
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
- emphasizing the different kinds of patterns
- factorizing code of the non-naming intro-patterns
Still some questions:
- Should -> and <- apply to hypotheses or not (currently they apply to
hypotheses either when used in assert-style tactics or apply in, or
when the term to rewrite is a variable, in which case "subst" is
applied)?
- Should "subst" be used when the -> or <- rewrites an equation x=t
posed by "assert" (i.e. rewrite everywhere and clearing x and hyp)?
- Should -> and <- be applicable in non assert-style if the lemma has
quantifications?
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Also taking advantage of the change to rename it into TacML. Ultimately
should allow ML tactic to return values.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The lexer parses bullets only at the beginning of sentence. In
particular, the lexer recognizes sentences (this feature was
introduced for the translator and it is still used for the
beautifier). It recognized "." but not "...'. I added "..." followed
by space or eol as a terminator of sentences. I hope this is
compatible with the rest of the code dealing with end of
sentences.
Fixed also parse_to_dot which was not aware of "...".
Maybe there are similar things to do with coqide or PG?
|
| | |
|
Maxime Dénès
Arnaud Spiwack
Enrico Tassi
Pierre-Marie Pédrot
Pierre Courtieu
Pierre Letouzey
Hugo Herbelin
Matthieu Sozeau
Matthieu Sozeau