aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiffhomepage
path: root/pretyping/find_subterm.ml
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAge
* Update headers following #6543.Gravatar Théo Zimmermann2018-02-27
|
* [api] Another large deprecation, `Nameops`Gravatar Emilio Jesus Gallego Arias2017-11-13
|
* Bump year in headers.Gravatar Pierre-Marie Pédrot2017-07-04
|
* Definining EConstr-based contexts.Gravatar Pierre-Marie Pédrot2017-02-14
| | | | | | This removes quite a few unsafe casts. Unluckily, I had to reintroduce the old non-module based names for these data structures, because I could not reproduce easily the same hierarchy in EConstr.
* Cleaning up interfaces.Gravatar Pierre-Marie Pédrot2017-02-14
| | | | | We make mli files look to what they were looking before the move to EConstr by opening this module.
* Unification API using EConstr.Gravatar Pierre-Marie Pédrot2017-02-14
|
* Tacred API using EConstr.Gravatar Pierre-Marie Pédrot2017-02-14
|
* Find_subterm API using EConstr.Gravatar Pierre-Marie Pédrot2017-02-14
|
* Merge PR #244.Gravatar Pierre-Marie Pédrot2016-09-08
|\
* | CLEANUP: minor readability improvementsGravatar Matej Kosik2016-08-24
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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.
| * Make the user_err header an optional parameter.Gravatar Emilio Jesus Gallego Arias2016-08-19
| | | | | | | | Suggested by @ppedrot
| * Remove errorlabstrm in favor of user_errGravatar Emilio Jesus Gallego Arias2016-08-19
|/ | | | | | | As noted by @ppedrot, the first is redundant. The patch is basically a renaming. We didn't make the component optional yet, but this could happen in a future patch.
* errors.ml renamed into cErrors.ml (avoid clash with an OCaml compiler-lib ↵Gravatar Pierre Letouzey2016-07-03
| | | | | | module) For the moment, there is an Error module in compilers-lib/ocamlbytecomp.cm(x)a
* Merge branch 'v8.5'Gravatar Pierre-Marie Pédrot2016-06-09
|\
| * Reverting dbdff037 which does not seem to prevent to have #3638 fixedGravatar Hugo Herbelin2016-06-09
| | | | | | | | | | on the contrary of message given in 23041481f, while it introduces a square time complexity of the size of the goal in subterm finding.
* | CLEANUP: Context.{Rel,Named}.Declaration.tGravatar Matej Kosik2016-02-09
|/ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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.
* Update copyright headers.Gravatar Maxime Dénès2016-01-20
|
* Removing dead code.Gravatar Pierre-Marie Pédrot2015-02-02
|
* Update headers.Gravatar Maxime Dénès2015-01-12
|
* Continuing fixing nested but convertible occurrences in find_subtermGravatar Hugo Herbelin2014-11-19
| | | | | (see 2e3ae20fe1e): test was only relevant in the case of explicitly given occurrence numbers.
* Fixing a little bug with nested but convertible occurrences in "destruct at".Gravatar Hugo Herbelin2014-11-18
|
* Dead code + typo.Gravatar Hugo Herbelin2014-10-26
|
* This commit introduces changes in induction and destruct.Gravatar Hugo Herbelin2014-10-25
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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.
* Make eq_pattern_test/eq_test work up to the equivalence of primitiveGravatar Matthieu Sozeau2014-09-24
| | | | projections with their eta-expanded constant form.
* Do not try to match on a subterm that is not closed in find_subterm.Gravatar Matthieu Sozeau2014-09-18
|
* Moved code for finding subterms (pattern, induction, set, generalize, ...)Gravatar Hugo Herbelin2014-06-28
into a specific new cleaned file find_subterm.ml. This makes things clearer but also solves some dependencies problem between Evd, Termops and Pretype_errors.