diff options
| author | Hugo Herbelin | 2015-12-18 07:32:15 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Hugo Herbelin | 2016-06-18 13:07:22 +0200 |
| commit | a34c17e0e4600d0c466f19b64c3dfb39376981fd (patch) | |
| tree | 06aeab8a503b8892d2a1fc4d66bd5add15038dd0 /plugins | |
| parent | 42cbdfccf0c0500935d619dccaa00476690229f8 (diff) | |
Adding eintros to respect the e- prefix policy.
In pat%constr, creating new evars is now allowed only if "eintros" is
given, i.e. "intros" checks that no evars are created, and similarly
e.g. for "injection ... as ... pat%constr".
The form "eintros [...]" or "eintros ->" with the case analysis or
rewrite creating evars is now also supported.
This is not a commitment to say that it is good to have an e- modifier
to tactics. It is just to be consistent with the existing convention.
It seems to me that the "no e-" variants are good for beginners. However,
expert might prefer to use the e-variants by default. Opinions from
teachers and users would be useful.
To be possibly done: do that [= ...] work on hypotheses with side
conditions or parameters based on the idea that they apply the full
injection and not only the restriction of it to goals which are
exactly an equality, as it is today.
Diffstat (limited to 'plugins')
| -rw-r--r-- | plugins/funind/invfun.ml | 2 |
1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/plugins/funind/invfun.ml b/plugins/funind/invfun.ml index 94530bfde2..1ff254f6ca 100644 --- a/plugins/funind/invfun.ml +++ b/plugins/funind/invfun.ml @@ -365,7 +365,7 @@ let prove_fun_correct evd functional_induction funs_constr graphs_constr schemes observe_tac("h_intro_patterns ") (let l = (List.nth intro_pats (pred i)) in match l with | [] -> tclIDTAC - | _ -> Proofview.V82.of_tactic (intro_patterns l)); + | _ -> Proofview.V82.of_tactic (intro_patterns false l)); (* unfolding of all the defined variables introduced by this branch *) (* observe_tac "unfolding" pre_tac; *) (* $zeta$ normalizing of the conclusion *) |