| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Uses internal to Refiner remain.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In current code, `Proofview.Goal.t` uses a phantom type to indicate
whether the goal was properly substituted wrt current `evar_map` or
not.
After the introduction of `EConstr`, this distinction should have
become unnecessary, thus we remove the phantom parameter from
`'a Proofview.Goal.t`. This may introduce some minor incompatibilities
at the typing level. Code-wise, things should remain the same.
We thus deprecate `assume`. In a next commit, we will remove
normalization as much as possible from the code.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The exception needs to carry aroud a pair of `env, sigma` so printing
is correct. This gets rid of a few global calls, and it is IMO the
right thing to do.
While we are at it, we incorporate some fixes to a couple of
additional printing functions missing the `env, sigma` pair.
|
| |
|
|
| |
They were not used anymore since the previous patches.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
The old algorithm was relying on list membership, which is O(n). This was
nefarious for terms with many binders. We use instead sets in O(log n).
|
| |\ |
|
| | | |
|
| |/
|
|
|
| |
It allows in particular to have "Info" on tactic "assert" and
derivatives not to give an "<unknown>".
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Reminder of (some of) the reasons for removal:
- Despite the claim in sigma.mli, it does *not* prevent evar
leaks, something like:
fun env evd ->
let (evd',ev) = new_evar env evd in
(evd,ev)
will typecheck even with Sigma-like type annotations (with a proof of
reflexivity)
- The API stayed embryonic. Even typing functions were not ported to
Sigma.
- Some unsafe combinators (Unsafe.tclEVARS) were replaced with slightly
less unsafe ones (e.g. s_enter), but those ones were not marked unsafe
at all (despite still being so).
- There was no good story for higher order functions manipulating evar
maps. Without higher order, one can most of the time get away with
reusing the same name for the updated evar map.
- Most of the code doing complex things with evar maps was using unsafe
casts to sigma. This code should be fixed, but this is an orthogonal
issue.
Of course, this was showing a nice and elegant use of GADTs, but the
cost/benefit ratio in practice did not seem good.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Constrintern.pf_global returns a global_reference, not a constr,
adapt plugins accordingly, properly registering universes where
necessary.
|
| | |
|
| |\ |
|
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
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.
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| |/| |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
... in pose proof of large proof terms
|
| |\| |
|
| | |\
| | |
| | |
| | | |
Was PR#263: Fast lookup in named contexts
|
| |\| | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | |/ |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
composition operator.
Short story:
This pull-request:
(1) removes the definition of the "right-to-left" function composition operator
(2) adds the definition of the "left-to-right" function composition operator
(3) rewrites the code relying on "right-to-left" function composition to rely on "left-to-right" function composition operator instead.
Long story:
In mathematics, function composition is traditionally denoted with ∘ operator.
Ocaml standard library does not provide analogous operator under any name.
Batteries Included provides provides two alternatives:
_ % _
and
_ %> _
The first operator one corresponds to the classical ∘ operator routinely used in mathematics.
I.e.:
(f4 % f3 % f2 % f1) x ≜ (f4 ∘ f3 ∘ f2 ∘ f1) x
We can call it "right-to-left" composition because:
- the function we write as first (f4) will be called as last
- and the function write as last (f1) will be called as first.
The meaning of the second operator is this:
(f1 %> f2 %> f3 %> f4) x ≜ (f4 ∘ f3 ∘ f2 ∘ f1) x
We can call it "left-to-right" composition because:
- the function we write as first (f1) will be called first
- and the function we write as last (f4) will be called last
That is, the functions are written in the same order in which we write and read them.
I think that it makes sense to prefer the "left-to-right" variant because
it enables us to write functions in the same order in which they will be actually called
and it thus better fits our culture
(we read/write from left to right).
|
| | | |
|
| |/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is a reimplementation of Hugo's PR#117.
We are trying to address the problem that the name of some reduction functions
was not saying what they were doing (e.g. whd_betadeltaiota was doing let-in
reduction). Like PR#117, we are careful that no function changed semantics
without changing the names. Porting existing ML code should be a matter of
renamings a few function calls.
Also, we introduce more precise reduction flags fMATCH, fFIX, fCOFIX
collectively denominated iota.
We renamed the following functions:
Closure.betadeltaiota -> Closure.all
Closure.betadeltaiotanolet -> Closure.allnolet
Reductionops.beta -> Closure.beta
Reductionops.zeta -> Closure.zeta
Reductionops.betaiota -> Closure.betaiota
Reductionops.betaiotazeta -> Closure.betaiotazeta
Reductionops.delta -> Closure.delta
Reductionops.betalet -> Closure.betazeta
Reductionops.betadelta -> Closure.betadeltazeta
Reductionops.betadeltaiota -> Closure.all
Reductionops.betadeltaiotanolet -> Closure.allnolet
Closure.no_red -> Closure.nored
Reductionops.nored -> Closure.nored
Reductionops.nf_betadeltaiota -> Reductionops.nf_all
Reductionops.whd_betadelta -> Reductionops.whd_betadeltazeta
Reductionops.whd_betadeltaiota -> Reductionops.whd_all
Reductionops.whd_betadeltaiota_nolet -> Reductionops.whd_allnolet
Reductionops.whd_betadelta_stack -> Reductionops.whd_betadeltazeta_stack
Reductionops.whd_betadeltaiota_stack -> Reductionops.whd_all_stack
Reductionops.whd_betadeltaiota_nolet_stack -> Reductionops.whd_allnolet_stack
Reductionops.whd_betadelta_state -> Reductionops.whd_betadeltazeta_state
Reductionops.whd_betadeltaiota_state -> Reductionops.whd_all_state
Reductionops.whd_betadeltaiota_nolet_state -> Reductionops.whd_allnolet_state
Reductionops.whd_eta -> Reductionops.shrink_eta
Tacmach.pf_whd_betadeltaiota -> Tacmach.pf_whd_all
Tacmach.New.pf_whd_betadeltaiota -> Tacmach.New.pf_whd_all
And removed the following ones:
Reductionops.whd_betaetalet
Reductionops.whd_betaetalet_stack
Reductionops.whd_betaetalet_state
Reductionops.whd_betadeltaeta_stack
Reductionops.whd_betadeltaeta_state
Reductionops.whd_betadeltaeta
Reductionops.whd_betadeltaiotaeta_stack
Reductionops.whd_betadeltaiotaeta_state
Reductionops.whd_betadeltaiotaeta
They were unused and having some reduction functions perform eta is confusing
as whd_all and nf_all don't do it.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |\ |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
I propose to change the name of the "Util.compose" function to "%".
Reasons:
1. If one wants to express function composition,
then the new name enables us to achieve this goal easier.
2. In "Batteries Included" they had made the same choice.
|
| |/| |
|
| | | |
|
Gaëtan Gilbert
Théo Zimmermann
Emilio Jesus Gallego Arias
Pierre-Marie Pédrot
Maxime Dénès
Hugo Herbelin
Matthieu Sozeau
Gaetan Gilbert
Matej Kosik
Matej Kosik