| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Had to put some hook in the handler of Proofview.NoSuchgoals.
Documentation updated. CHANGE updated.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
for typeclasses.
This was not the case for goals created at the end of the tactic by salvaging the [future_goals] from the evar map. It would cause typeclass resolution to try and solve these goals (if they have a class type) at each subsequent tactic.
Fixes #3841.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
propagate it. This allows C-zar to continue to work.
Don't know if it is the best way to do it.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The occur check is done even if the flag [unsafe] is set to true. The rational is that a tactic cannot control where it takes pieces of terms from (and hence will not generally make terms which pass the occur-check), and it would be painful to ask every tactic which takes a term as an argument to do an occur check before [refine].
I reused the same error than used by unification. It gives a pretty nice error message. An alternative would be to have a dedicated error with pretty much the same error message. I'm not sure which is best, so I went for the simplest one.
The same check is done in the compatibility layer.
Fixes a reported bug which I cannot locate for some reason.
|
| |
|
| |
Generally, tactics build type-correct terms. A safe refine is hence a waste of time (somtimes a significant one). The safe option is kept for specific purposes such as debugging, or some weird interaction with the pretyper and universes which still seemed to hold last time I checked (used by the user-level refine tactic).
|
| |
|
| |
Just hoisted a definition out of a loop. Not that this part of the code is time critical at all. I just feel it's cleaner.
|
| |
|
| |
Instead of filtering over the goals we have just creating and running through the evar_map, fetching the evar_info (that we've just created), and marking it as unresolvable, the goals are just created unresolvable. Which is probably what I should have done from the beginning, but it had escaped my notice during my code-cleaning session.
|
| |
|
| |
I can't say I condone having unsafe primitives which are not used anywhere. But if they are to be there, let's make sure they don't duplicate code.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
The function initializing proofviews were marking all evars as non-resolvables
for the proofview, while only goal evars ought to be.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
Closes #3801.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
- drops all Defined entries from the evar map (applying the subst to the
initial evar and the undefined evars types).
- call Gc.compact
Now the question is: where should these two commands be documented?
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
The name is chosen in accordance to Ltac's syntax. In particular [refine] prints as Ltac's refine, which is not entirely correct (Ltac's refine does some βι-reduction after refinement). Maybe it would be better to give make it clear that it is a different refine. Still in refine, the constr is printed without taking into account the new evars, which, apart from potentially getting the order of the goals wrong, prints new evars as ?x instead of ?[x]. A printer for terms with new evars will be necessary.
In the case of [V82.tactic], the name is just <unknown> because there is no way to retrieve any information. It won't appear in the first level of info in Ltac, however, if the user would require a deeper trace, he may see internal tactics (Tactics defined with TACTIC EXTEND also have weird, unparsable, internal names).
|
| |
|
|
| |
Hence dispatches are printed as dispatches rather than sequences.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Called with [Info n tac], runs [tac] and prints its info trace unfolding [n] level of tactic names ([0] for no unfolding at all).
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
Otherwise I risked catching errors from the argument functions when I wanted to catch size mismatch to add information to errors.
|
| |
|
|
| |
9f51aafebd5f3a00dabfe056772a300830b3c430 )
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
future goals).
Fixes #3757. Thanks to Hugo for helping pinpoint the issue.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
defined and the file providing the primitives.
The datatypes are defined in [Proofview_monad], previous [Proofview_monad] is now called [Logic_monad] since it is more generic since the refactoring.
|
| |
|
|
| |
ret -> return, bind -> (>>=), etc… So that monads expose a [Monad.S] signature. Also Proofview now exposes the [Monad.S] signature directly rather than in a [Monad.S] subdirectory.
|
| |
|
|
| |
[on_advance] gave almost no gain in readability, while costing a closure.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
dispatch.
Leads to clearer an more efficient code.
|
| |
|
|
| |
For optimisation purposes.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
It is, after all, a generic function about lists.
|
| |
|
|
| |
combinators.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
The Unsafe module is for unsafe tactics which cannot be done without anytime soon. Whereas V82 indicates a function which we want to get rid of and that shouldn't be used in a new function.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
(More thinking needed)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Makes the monad more flexible as it will be easier to add new components to the concrete state of the tactic monad.
The Proofview module is also organised in a more abstract way with dedicated submodules to access various parts of the state or writer.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Changes in the implementation details had unwittingly changed the order in which Grab Existential Variables displayed the goals.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Uses the new architecture which allows to keep track of all new evars. The [future_goals] are flushed at the end of the tactics, the [principal_future_goal] is ignored.
|
| |
|
|
| |
In my first attempt I just dropped all future goals before starting a refinement. This was done for simplicity but is incorrect in general. In this version the future goals which are not introduced by the particular instance of refine are kept for future use.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Now [Goal] only contains a few helpers.
|
| | |
|
Maxime Dénès
Pierre Courtieu
Pierre-Marie Pédrot
Arnaud Spiwack
Hugo Herbelin
Enrico Tassi