| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| ... | |
| |/ / |
|
| |\| |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| |\| |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| |/ |
|
| |
|
|
| |
to behave like "specialize (H ...)" since 4/8/2008 (r11300, 7d515acbc5).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
takes a variable substitution for matched variables in the (lhs) pattern, and
uses the existing ist structure to pretype the rhs correcly, without
having to deal with the volatile evars.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
- no more inconsistent Axiom in the Prelude
- STM can now process Admitted proofs asynchronously
- the quick chain can stock "Admitted" jobs in .vio files
- the vio2vo step checks the jobs but does not stock the result
in the opaque tables (they have no slot)
- Admitted emits a warning if the proof is complete
- Admitted uses the (partial) proof term to infer section variables
used (if not given with Proof using), like for Qed
- test-suite: extra line Require TestSuite.admit to each file making
use of admit
- test-suite/_CoqProject: to pass to CoqIDE and PG the right -Q flag to
find TestSuite.admit
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
right-hand side of a "change with": the rhs lives in the toplevel
environment.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This new implementation now allows for simultaneous replacing of hypotheses,
thus fixing bug #2149.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
new proof engine in e824d4293. Because of the expansion made by "fold"
and possibly by "change", checking the order of hypotheses is
necessary in general in "reduce". Before, it was done by side-effect
on reference "check", now it has to be explicit. To do for
optimization: flag each of the red_expr conversion strategy according
to whether they really need a check.
Also renamed the e_reduce family to e_change to emphasize that some
expansion can occur and that typing has to be rechecked.
This fixes recent failure of CoLoR (and probably Ergo).
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Not very optimized though (if we apply convert_hyp on any hyp, a new
evar will be generated for every different hyp...).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
being able to export hints without tactics, vm, etc. to come with.
Some functions moved to the new proof engine.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
apply f, g,... so that apply f, g. succeeds when apply f; apply g
does. It just mimicks the behavior of rewrite foo bar.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
of resulution for goals whose head is "ref". + means the argument
is an input and shouldn't contain an evar, otherwise resolution
fails. This generalizes the Typeclasses Strict Resolution option
which prevents resolution to fire on underconstrained typeclass
constraints, now the criterion can be applied to specific parameters.
Also cleanup auto/eauto code, uncovering a potential backwards
compatibility issue: in cases the goal contains existentials, we
never use the discrimination net in auto/eauto. We should try to
set this on once the contribs are stabilized (the stdlib goes through
when the dnet is used in these cases).
|
| |
|
|
| |
generated equation names).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
in69665dd2480d364162933972de7ffa955eccab4d. There are still situations
when "as" is not given where equations coming from injection are not
yet removed, making invalid the computation of dependencies, what
prevents an hypothesis to be cleared and replaced.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This time it should work at least as well as the previous version. The error
messages were adapted a little. There is still a buggy behaviour when clearing
lets in section, but this is mostly a problem of section handling. The v8.4
version of clearbody did exhibit the same behaviour anyway.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Some legacy code remains to keep the newish refine tactic working, but
ultimately it should be removed. I did not manage to do it properly though,
i.e. without breaking the test-suite furthermore.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
can be given with second H bound by the first one.
Not very satisfied by passing closure to tactics.ml, but otherwise
tactics would have to be aware of glob_constr.
|
| |
|
|
| |
"pat/term" for "apply term on current_hyp as pat".
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Isolating a core tactic in replace, shareable to cutrewrite.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
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?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
- made "apply" tactics of type Proofview.tactic, as well as other inner
functions about elim and assert
- used same hypothesis naming policy for intros and internal_cut (towards a
reorganization of intro patterns)
- "apply ... in H as pat" now supports any kind of introduction
pattern (doc not changed)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
obtained from case analysis or induction. Made it under experimental status.
This replaces commit bf7d2a3ad2535e7d57db79c17c81aaf67d956965 which was
acting at the level of logic.ml. Now acting in tactics.ml.
Parts of things to be done about naming (not related to Propositions):
induction on H:nat+bool produces hypotheses n and b but destruct on H
produces a and b. This is because induction takes the dependent scheme
whose names are statically inferred to be a and b while destruct
dynamically builds a new scheme.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
of p,
avoiding unwanted universe constraints in presence of universe polymorphic constants.
Fixing HoTT bugs # 36, 54 and 113.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
not introduce beyond what is under control of the branch. See test-suite intros.v for an example.
|
| | |
|
Hugo Herbelin
Pierre-Marie Pédrot
Maxime Dénès
Matthieu Sozeau
Enrico Tassi
Arnaud Spiwack
Matthieu Sozeau