| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
We do not check that an hypothesis is used in context declarations that
occur before it.
|
|
above it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This fixes bug #4828 (https://coq.inria.fr/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=4828).
|
|
|
|
I had to remove code handling the -type-in-type option introduced by commit
9c732a5. We should fix it at some point, but I am not sure that using the
checker with a system known to be blatantly inconsistent makes much sense
anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preserve a compatibility whether the Structural Injection flag is on
or not.
|
|
Doing it explicitly because it is in another file.
|
|
Comments
--------
- The tactic specialize conveys a somehow intuitive reasoning concept
and I would support continuing maintaining it even if the design
comes in my opinion with some oddities. (Note that the experience of
MathComp and SSReflect also suggests that specialize is an
interesting concept in itself).
There are two variants to specialize:
- specialize (H args) with H an hypothesis looks natural: we
specialize H with extra arguments and the "as pattern" clause comes
naturally as an extension of it, destructuring the result using the
pattern.
- specialize term with bindings makes the choice of fully applying the
term filling missing expressions with bindings and to then behave as
generalize. Wouldn't we like a more fine-grained approach and the
result to remain in the context?
In this second case, the "as" clause works as if the term were posed
in the context with "pose proof".
|
|
There were three versions of injection:
1. "injection term" without "as" clause:
was leaving hypotheses on the goal in reverse order
2. "injection term as ipat", first version:
was introduction hypotheses using ipat in reverse order without
checking that the number of ipat was the size of the injection
(activated with "Unset Injection L2R Pattern Order")
3. "injection term as ipat", second version:
was introduction hypotheses using ipat in left-to-right order
checking that the number of ipat was the size of the injection
and clearing the injecting term by default if an hypothesis
(activated with "Set Injection L2R Pattern Order", default one from 8.5)
There is now:
4. "injection term" without "as" clause, new version:
introducing the components of the injection in the context in
left-to-right order using default intro-patterns "?"
and clearing the injecting term by default if an hypothesis
(activated with "Set Structural Injection")
The new versions 3. and 4. are the "expected" ones in the sense that
they have the following good properties:
- introduction in the context is in the natural left-to-right order
- "injection" behaves the same with and without "as", always
introducing the hypotheses in the goal what corresponds to the
natural expectation as the changes I made in the proof scripts for
adaptation confirm
- clear the "injection" hypothesis when an hypothesis which is the
natural expectation as the changes I made in the proof scripts for
adaptation confirm
The compatibility can be preserved by "Unset Structural Injection" or
by calling "simple injection".
The flag is currently off.
|
|
simplifying and generalizing the grammar entries for injection,
discriminate and simplify_eq.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
This commit documents par:, fixes its semantics so that is
behaves like all:, supports (toplevel) abstract and optimizes
toplevel solve.
`par: solve [tac]` is equivalent to `Ltac tac1 := solve[tac]...par: tac1`
but is optimized for failures: if one goal fails all are aborted
immediately.
`par: abstract tac` runs abstract on the generated proof terms. Nested
abstract calls are not supported.
|
|
With par: the scenario is this one:
coqide --- master ---- proof worker 1 (has no par: steps)
---- proof worker 2 (has a par: step)
---- tac worker 2.1
---- tac worker 2.2
---- tac worker 2.3
Actor 2 installs a remote counter for universe levels, that are
requested to master. Multiple threads dealing with actors 2.x
may need to get values from that counter at the same time.
Long story short, in this complex scenario a mutex was missing
and the control threads for 2.x were accessing the counter (hence
reading/writing to the single socket connecting 2 with master at the
same time, "corrupting" the data flow).
A better solution would be to have a way to generate unique fresh universe
levels locally to a worker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
They were already commented out, Pierre confirms they're spurious.
|
|
along with goals, with nice formatting.
|
|
Looping on jenkins only, couldn't reproduce locally.
To be investigated further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suggested by R. Krebbers and C. Cohen, this makes modes
more applicable, by allowing to trigger resolution on partially
instantiated indices. This is a rough but fast approximation of the
pattern on which one would like instances to apply.
|
|
As noticed by C. Cohen it was confusingly different from standard
notation.
|
|
|
|
Fix test-suite files
|
|
Now that typeclasses eauto uses the new eauto.
|
|
Add an option to force backtracking at toplevel, which
is used by default when calling typeclasses eauto on a set of goals.
They might be depended on by other subgoals, so the tactic should
be backtracking by default, a once can make it not backtrack.
|
|
Be more lenient, allowing non-class subgoals to remain
after resolution, this seems necessary when launching
resolution in goals containing evars.
Also put a tclONCE when hints don't need to backtrack.
|
|
|
|
- Treat shelved dependent subgoals that might not be
resolved after some proof search correctly by restarting
their resolution as soon as possible (if they are
typeclasses in only_classes mode).
- Treat dependencies between goals better, avoiding
backtracking more often when dependencies allow.
|
|
To deactivate the limitation of introductions (which was added to avoid
eta expansions in proof terms). This can cause huge blowups due to dumb
backtracking. The arrow introduction rule is reversible, so better do it
eagerly!
|
|
unshelve_goals is used to correctly register dependent
subgoals that have to be solved. Resolution may fail to
do so using hints, so we have to put them back as goals
in that case. The shelf is a good interface for doing that.
unifiable can be used outside proofview to detect dependencies
between goals. This might be better in another module.
|
|
Set Typeclasses Compatibility "8.5". uses the old resolution
tactic (off by default, but useful for debugging incompatibilities)
Set Typeclasses Unification Compatibility "8.5".
uses the old clenv unification tactic in resolution even
with the new proof engine (on by default for now).
Also fix the 8.5-compatible unification with the new engine resolution
function, by using with_shelf and unshelve.
|
|
Add a substitution of a local variable by its body to
ensure proper unification without having to make all local
variables unfoldable.
|
|
|
|
|
