| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now that types can share the same dynamic representation, we do not have
to transtype the topelvel values dynamically and just take advantage of
the standard interpretation function.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Entries defined in the Pcoq AST of symbols must be marshallable, because they
are present in the libstack. Yet, CAMLP4/5 entries are not marshallable as
they contain functional values. This is why the Pcoq module used a pair
[string * string] to describe entries. It is obviously type-unsafe, so
we define a new abstract type in its own module. There is a little issue
though, which is that our entries and CAMLP4/5 entries must be kept
synchronized through an association table. The Pcoq module tries to
maintain this invariant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This allows fatal_error to be used for printing anomalies at loading time.
|
|
This allows fatal_error to be used for printing anomalies at loading time.
|
|
Conflicts:
tactics/eauto.ml4
(merging eauto.ml4 and adapting coq_micromega.ml to new typing.ml API)
|
|
TACTIC EXTEND (based on user-given name).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now that ML tactics are not dispatched according to the type of their arguments
anymore, one has to take care of the way potentially atomic tactics are handled.
This patch ensures that the atomic tactics generated by the TACTIC EXTEND
macro have the right length and the right order.
There may be very rare trouble if two ML tactics in the same entry are of the
form
"foo" x1 ... xn
"foo" y1 ... ym
where all xi and yi may be empty. I doubt that the legacy implementation
behaved well in this case anyway.
|
|
Furthermore, ML tactic dispatch is not done according to the
type of its argument anymore.
|
|
This will allow to get rid of the fragile mechanism of discriminating which
entry to call depending on the dynamic type of its arguments.
|
|
|
|
there is no focused goal.
The 'g' is for "global". The arguments are the same as [fail]. Beware: [let x := constr:… in tac] is a goal-local operation regardless of whether [tac] is goal-local or not.
|
|
This was due to the unqualified uses of "Lazy" being disambiguated in different manners. I just changed the constructor name to "Select".
Fixes #3877.
|
|
[multimatch … with …] returns every possible successes: every matching branch and every successes of these matching branch, so that subsequent tactics can backtrack as well.
|
|
|
|
You can write 'simpl -[plus minus] div2'. Simpl does not use it for now.
|
|
reference" and "simpl pattern" in the code (maybe we should have
merged them instead, but I finally decided to enforce their
difference, even if some compatibility is to be preversed - the idea
is that at some time "simpl reference" would only call a weak-head
simpl (or eventually cbn), leading e.g. to reduce 2+n into S(1+n)
rather than S(S(n)) which could be useful for better using induction
hypotheses.
In the process we also implement the following:
- 'simpl "+"' is accepted to reduce all applicative subterms whose
head symbol is written "+" (in the toplevel scope); idem for
vm_compute and native_compute
- 'simpl reference' works even if reference has maximally inserted
implicit arguments (this solves the "simpl fst" incompatibility)
- compatibility of ltac expressions referring to vm_compute and
native_compute with functor application should now work (i.e.
vm_compute and native_compute are now taken into account in
tacsubst.ml)
- for compatibility, "simpl eq" (assuming no maximal implicit args in
eq) or "simpl @eq" to mean "simpl (eq _ _)" are still allowed.
By the way, is "mul" on nat defined optimally? "3*n" simplifies to
"n+(n+(n+0))". Are there some advantages of this compared to have it
simplified to "n+n+n" (i.e. to "(n+n)+n").
|
|
|
|
- Do use the flag for_ml for distinguishing coq level and ml level
ltac definitions.
- Skip ML call from the trace.
There are still differences from 8.4 and trunk. For instance on:
Ltac f x := refine x.
Goal False.
f I.
8.4 says:
In nested Ltac calls to "f" and "x" (with x:=I), last term evaluation failed.
Error: The term "I" has type "True" while it is expected to have type "False".
trunk says:
In nested Ltac calls to "f" and "refine <genarg:uconstr>", last call failed.
Error: The term "I" has type "True" while it is expected to have type "False".
Maybe we would like a mix of both (besides the printing of a
non-elegant "<genarg:uconstr>)?
|
|
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.
|
|
(the action is "clear").
Added subst_intropattern which was missing since the introduction of
ApplyOn intro patterns.
Still to do: make "intros _ ?id" working without interferences when
"id" is precisely the internal name used for hypotheses to discard.
|
|
will name the goal id; writing ?[?id] will use the first
fresh name available based with prefix id.
Tactics intro, rename, change, ... from logic.ml now preserve goal
name; cut preserves goal name on its main premise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Proofview.Goal.enter into Proofview.Goal.nf_enter.
2. Proofview.Goal.raw_enter into Proofview.Goal.enter.
3. Proofview.Goal.goals -> Proofview.Goals.nf_goals
4. Proofview.Goal.raw_goals -> Proofview.Goals.goals
5. Ftactic.goals -> Ftactic.nf_goals
6. Ftactic.raw_goals -> Ftactic.goals
This is more uniform with the other functions of Coq.
|
|
This allows to directly register globtactics in the Tacenv API, without
having to resort to any internalization function.
|
|
- 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?
|
|
Also taking advantage of the change to rename it into TacML. Ultimately
should allow ML tactic to return values.
|
|
|
|
all the tactics using the constructor keyword in one entry. This has the
side-effect to also remove the other variant of constructor from the AST.
I also needed to hack around the "tauto" tactic to make it work, by
calling directly the ML tactic through a TacExtend node. This may be
generalized to get rid of the intermingled dependencies between this
tactic and the infamous Ltac quotation mechanism.
|
