| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
Cf CHANGES for details.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
simpler re-printing of assert.
Also fixing the precedence for printing "by" clause.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
You can now write [[1, 3-5]:tac.] to apply [tac] on the subgoals
numbered 1 and 3 to 5.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This commit introduces the concept of proof blocks that are
resilient to errors. They are represented as ErrorBound boxes
in the STM document with the topological invariant that they never
overlap.
The detection and error recovery of ErrorBound boxes is defined outside
the STM. One can define a box by providing a function to detect it
statically by crawling the parsed document and a function to recover
from an error at run time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note that this breaks the compatibility, in a beneficial way I believe. Tactics
defined in strict mode (i.e. through Ltac foo := ...) may not do an introduction
on a local identifier anymore. They must use the "fresh" primitive instead.
|
|
|
|
and Evar in notations, and there are anyway already forbidden.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This reverts commit bde36d4b00185065628324d8ca71994f84eae244.
|
|
allows for a simpler re-printing of assert.
Also fixing the precedence for printing "by" clause.
|
|
variables" when matching over "{v : _ | _ & _}" which hides twice the
binding "fun v" since it is "sig2 (fun v => _) (fun v => _)".
Computing the bound variables statically at internalisation time
rather than every time at interpretation time. This cannot hurt even
if I don't know how to deal with the "notation" problem of a single
bound variable actually hiding two: at the current time, the notation
is printed only if the two variables are identical (see #4592), so,
with this semantics the warning should not be printed, but we lost the
information that we are coming from a notation; if #4592 were
addressed, then one of the binding should be alpha-renamed if they
differ, so collision should be solved by choosing the variable name
which is not renamed, but the matching algorithm should then be aware
of what the notation printing algorithm is doing... maybe not the most
critical thing at the current time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This type was actually only used by the debug printer of tactics, and only
for atomic tactics. Furthermore, that type was asymmetric, as the underlying
tacexpr type was set to be glob_tactic, when the semantics would have required
a Val.t type.
Furthermore, this type is absent from every contrib I have seen, which hints
again in favour of its lack of meaning.
|
|
|
|
into JasonGross-trunk-function_scope
|
|
It was only used by setoid_ring for the Add Ring command, and was easily
replaced by a dedicated argument. Moreover, it was of no use to tactic
notations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
notations in patterns than in terms, wrt implicit arguments and
scopes.
See file Notations2.v for the conventions in use in terms.
Somehow this could be put in 8.5 since it puts in agreement the
interpretation of abbreviations and notations in "symmetric patterns"
to what is done in terms (even though the interpretation rules for
terms are a bit ad hoc).
There is one exception: in terms, "(foo args) args'" deactivates the
implicit arguments and scopes in args'. This is a bit complicated to
implement in patterns so the syntax is not supported (and anyway, this
convention is a bit questionable).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This was redundant with the wit_uconstr generic argument, so there was no real
point on keeping it there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
