| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |\ |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
The glob_expr was actually always embedded as a VFun, so this patch should
not change anything semantically. The only change occurs in the plugin API
where one should use the Tacinterp.tactic_of_value function instead of
Tacinterp.eval_tactic.
Moreover, this patch allows to use tactics returning arguments from the ML
side.
|
| |\ \ |
|
| | | | |
|
| |/ /
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
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.
|
| |\| |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| |\| |
|
| | | |
|
| |/ |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Some functions from pretyping/typing.ml and their derivatives were potential
source of evarmap leaks, as they dropped their resulting evarmap. This commit
clarifies the situation by renaming them according to a unsafe_* scheme. Their
sound variant is likewise renamed to their old name. The following renamings
were made.
- Typing.type_of -> unsafe_type_of
- Typing.e_type_of -> type_of
- A new e_type_of function that matches the e_ prefix policy
- Tacmach.pf_type_of -> pf_unsafe_type_of
- A new safe pf_type_of function.
All uses of unsafe_* functions should be eventually eliminated.
|
| |
|
| |
Restores the intended behaviour from v8.3 and earlier.
|
| |
|
|
| |
`end proof` changes the proof mode to `"Classic"`.
|
| |
|
|
| |
So that the commands are assigned the appropriate status of syntax-changing or not, as well as the proof mode they are setting.
|
| |
|
|
| |
It will not work in CoqIDE though, which handles printing its own way. It's a general remark that we have many ways of printing things in Coq and we should look for a unified structured framework to be shared between interfaces.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
subproofs.
The front-end is supposed to take care of that, but it may help to catch bugs.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
It was probably creating bugs when trying to use [escape].
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I had previously mistakenly enforced the property that after solving every goal in a block, unfocusing was performed automatically until one goal is in focus. This is not how the declarative mode is supposed to behave. Rather every focus must be explicitely unfocused by a closing command.
This hit a few bad interaction with the pure representation of proof introduced for the asynchronous processing.
Some of the invariants seem fragile, so this minimally disruptive solution is probably not long-term. In particular since each block uses the same focus kind, an `end <block>` may close another block than intended if the number of unfocussing command executed is not the right one.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backported from trunk.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
After executing a command classified as VtProofStep the stm
prints the goals (if used via the tty API).
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This new implementation now allows for simultaneous replacing of hypotheses,
thus fixing bug #2149.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
That is [Tactics.New.refine]. Replaced it with a wrapper around the primitive refine [Proofview.Refine.refine], but with extra reductions on the resulting goals.
There was two used of this refine: one in the declarative mode, and one in type classes. The porting of the latter is likely to have introduced bugs.
Factored code with Ltac's refine in Extratactics.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Not very optimized though (if we apply convert_hyp on any hyp, a new
evar will be generated for every different hyp...).
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This solution is a bit dumb, but I guess does what one expects.
Each decl mode proof commands stays in proof mode.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
contortions in internalization/externalization. It uses a fully typed
version of detyping, requiring the environment, to move from
primitive projection applications to regular applications of
the eta-expanded version. The kernel is unchanged, and only
constrMatching needs compatibility code now.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
instances still to do). Using heuristics to name after the quantifier
name it comes. Also added a "sigma" to almost all printing functions.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
scheme, redundancies, possibility of chaining a tactic knowing the
name of introduced hypothesis, new proof engine).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
- 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?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
hypothesis when using it in apply or rewrite (prefix ">",
undocumented), and a modifier to explicitly keep it in induction or
destruct (prefix "!", reminiscent of non-linerarity).
Also added undocumented option "Set Default Clearing Used Hypotheses"
which makes apply and rewrite default to erasing the hypothesis they
use (if ever their argument is indeed an hypothesis of the context).
|
| |
|
|
| |
subgoals and the role of the "by tac" clause swapped.
|
Pierre-Marie Pédrot
Guillaume Melquiond
Hugo Herbelin
Matej Kosik
Maxime Dénès
Arnaud Spiwack
Pierre Corbineau
Enrico Tassi
Matthieu Sozeau