| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |\ |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
Noticed by Sigurd Schneider.
|
| |/ |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
| |
We do up to `Term` which is the main bulk of the changes.
|
| |
|
|
| |
This will allow to merge back `Names` with `API.Names`
|
| |
|
|
| |
This is a first step towards some of the solutions proposed in #6008.
|
| | |
|
| |\ |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
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.
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
As per https://github.com/coq/coq/pull/716#issuecomment-305140839
Partially using
```bash
git grep --name-only 'anomaly\s*\(~label:"[^"]*"\s*\)\?\(Pp.\)\?(\(\(Pp.\)\?str\)\?\s*".*[^\.!]")' | xargs sed s'/\(anomaly\s*\(~label:"[^"]*"\s*\)\?\(Pp.\)\?(\(\(Pp.\)\?str\)\?\s*".*\s*[^\.! ]\)\s*")/\1.")/g' -i
```
and
```bash
git grep --name-only ' !"' | xargs sed s'/ !"/!"/g' -i
```
The rest were manually edited by looking at the results of
```bash
git grep anomaly | grep '\.ml' | grep -v 'anomaly\s*\(~label:"[^"]*"\s*\)\?\(Pp\.\)\?(\(\(Pp.\)\?str\)\?\s*".*\(\.\|!\)")' | grep 'anomaly\($\|[^_]\)' | less
```
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
This fixes Théo's bug on eset.
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
This is the continuation of #244, we now deprecate `CErrors.error`,
the single entry point in Coq is `user_err`.
The rationale is to allow for easier grepping, and to ease a future
cleanup of error messages. In particular, we would like to
systematically classify all error messages raised by Coq and be sure
they are properly documented.
We restore the two functions removed in #244 to improve compatibility,
but mark them deprecated.
|
| |\ \ |
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
This completes the Loc.ghost removal, the idea is to gear the API
towards optional, but uniform, location handling.
We don't print <unknown> anymore in the case there is no location.
This is what the test suite expects.
The old printing logic for located items was a bit inconsistent as
it sometimes printed <unknown> and other times it printed nothing as
the caller checked for `is_ghost` upstream.
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
Now it is a private field, locations are optional.
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
The current implementation was still using continuation passing-style, and
furthermore was triggering a focus on the goals. We take advantage of the
tactic features instead.
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
The only remaining use was applied on the unfold tactic, and the behaviours
of tclPROGRESS and tclWEAK_PROGRESS coincide whenever only one goal is produced
by their argument tactic.
|
| |/ /
| |
| |
| | |
The only use in Equality is reimplemented in the new engine.
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
The transition has been done a bit brutally. I think we can still save a
lot of useless normalizations here and there by providing the right API
in EConstr. Nonetheless, this is a first step.
|
| |\ \ |
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
Now they are useless because all of the primitives are (should?) be
evar-insensitive.
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
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.
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| |/ / |
|
| |\| |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
There was a catch-all clause in the tclORELSE0 function. We now only
catch noncritical exceptions.
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| |\ \ |
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
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.
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
Suggested by @ppedrot
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
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.
|
| |/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In some cases prior to this patch, there were two cases for the same
error function, one taking a location, the other not.
We unify them by using an option parameter, in the line with recent
changes in warnings and feedback.
This implies a bit of clean up in some places, but more importantly, is
the preparation for subsequent patches making `Loc.location` opaque,
change that could be use to improve modularity and allow a more
functional implementation strategy --- for example --- of the
beautifier.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
module)
For the moment, there is an Error module in compilers-lib/ocamlbytecomp.cm(x)a
|
| |
|
|
| |
Do not evar-normalize the argument provided by afterHyp.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This allows to write things like this:
split; 2: intro _; exact I
or like this:
eexists ?[x]; ?[x]: exact 0; trivial
This has the side-effect on making the '?' before '[x]' mandatory.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
- Fixing dead code, doc.
- Relaxing constraints on using an as-tuple in inversion.
|
| |\ |
|
Maxime Dénès
Hugo Herbelin
Théo Zimmermann
Emilio Jesus Gallego Arias
Pierre-Marie Pédrot
Jason Gross
Enrico Tassi
Matej Kosik
Matej Kosik
Pierre Letouzey
Cyprien Mangin