| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
The use of template polymorphism in constants was quite limited, as it
only applied to definitions that were exactly inductive types without any
parameter whatsoever. Furthermore, it seems that following the introduction
of polymorphic definitions, the code path enforced regular polymorphism as
soon as the type of a definition was given, which was in practice almost
always.
Removing this feature had no observable effect neither on the test-suite,
nor on any development that we monitor on Travis. I believe it is safe to
assume it was nowadays useless.
|
|
This ought to ease the understanding of the code.
|
|
This was an easy to prove property that I somehow overlooked.
|
|
This is actually useless, the code does not depend on the value of the
entry for side-effects.
|
|
We sprinkle a few GADTs in the kernel in order to statically ensure that
entries are pure, so that we get stronger invariants.
|
|
|
|
We use an algebraic type instead of a pair of a boolean and the corresponding
data. For now, this is isomorphic, but this allows later change in the structure.
|
|
|
|
The function turning a side-effect declaration into the corresponding
entry was crazily wrong, as it used a named universe context quantifying
over DeBruijn universe indices. Declaring such entries resulted
in random anomalies.
This fixes bug #5641.
|
|
This function breaks the abstraction barrier of abstract universe contexts,
as it provides a way to observe the bound names of such a context. We remove
all the uses that can be easily get rid of with the current API.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It stores both universe constraints and subtyping information for
blocks of inductive declarations.
At this stage the there is no inference or checking implemented. The
subtyping information simply encodes equality of levels for the condition of
subtyping.
|
|
The [let _typ = ...] comes from before universe polymorphism. In those
times it was [let _typ, cst = ...] which produced something of use.
The asserts come from 359e4ffe3 and before (2006 and before). In those
times [Typeops.infer] rebuilt the term being typed, but nowadays the
assert seems of little use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
We remove `edit_id` from the STM. In PIDE they serve a different
purpose, however in Coq they were of limited utility and required many
special cases all around the code.
Indeed, parsing is not an asynchronous operation in Coq, thus having
feedback about parsing didn't make much sense. All clients indeed
ignore such feedback and handle parsing in a synchronous way.
XML protocol clients are unaffected, they rely on the instead on the
Fail value.
This commit supersedes PR#203.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instead of browsing the term as many times as there are abstracted constants,
we replace the constants in one pass. We have to be a bit careful to replace
the right variables though, in case there are chained abstracts. This is much
faster.
This solves the second part of bug #5382: Huge case analysis fails in coq8.5.x.
|
|
We don't need to look for the size of the whole list to find whether we can
extract a suffix from it, as we can do it in one go instead. This slowness
was observable in abstract-heavy code.
|
|
In one case, the hashconsed type of a judgement was not used anywhere else.
In another case, the Opaqueproof module was rehashconsing terms that had
already gone through a hashconsing phase. Indeed, most OpaqueDef constructor
applications actually called it beforehand, so that the one performed in
Opaqueproof was most often useless. The only case where this was not true
was at section closing time, so that we tweak the Cooking.cook_constant to
perform hashconsing for us.
|
|
|
|
We were doing fishy things in the Term_typing file, where side-effects were
not considered in the right uniquization order because of the uniq_seff_rev
function. It probably did not matter after a9b76df because effects were
(mostly) uniquize upfront, but this is not clear because of the use of the
transparente API in the module.
Now everything has to go through the opaque API, so that a proper dependence
order is ensured.
|
|
We move it from Entries to Term_typing and export the few functions needed
to manipulate it in this module.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe an unwanted shadowing was introduced by a4043608f704f0.
|
|
|
|
No functional change, we create the new string beforehand and
`id_of_string` will become a noop with `-safe-string`.
|
|
It was always set to `greedy:true`.
|
|
This is really [mv fast_typeops.ml{,i} typeops.ml{,i}] plus trivial
changes in the other files, the real changes are in the parent commit.
|
|
|
|
composition operator.
Short story:
This pull-request:
(1) removes the definition of the "right-to-left" function composition operator
(2) adds the definition of the "left-to-right" function composition operator
(3) rewrites the code relying on "right-to-left" function composition to rely on "left-to-right" function composition operator instead.
Long story:
In mathematics, function composition is traditionally denoted with ∘ operator.
Ocaml standard library does not provide analogous operator under any name.
Batteries Included provides provides two alternatives:
_ % _
and
_ %> _
The first operator one corresponds to the classical ∘ operator routinely used in mathematics.
I.e.:
(f4 % f3 % f2 % f1) x ≜ (f4 ∘ f3 ∘ f2 ∘ f1) x
We can call it "right-to-left" composition because:
- the function we write as first (f4) will be called as last
- and the function write as last (f1) will be called as first.
The meaning of the second operator is this:
(f1 %> f2 %> f3 %> f4) x ≜ (f4 ∘ f3 ∘ f2 ∘ f1) x
We can call it "left-to-right" composition because:
- the function we write as first (f1) will be called first
- and the function we write as last (f4) will be called last
That is, the functions are written in the same order in which we write and read them.
I think that it makes sense to prefer the "left-to-right" variant because
it enables us to write functions in the same order in which they will be actually called
and it thus better fits our culture
(we read/write from left to right).
|
|
"Context.{Rel,Named}.fold_constr"
|
|
mainly concerning referring to "Context.{Rel,Named}.get_{id,value,type}" functions.
If multiple modules define a function with a same name, e.g.:
Context.{Rel,Named}.get_type
those calls were prefixed with a corresponding prefix
to make sure that it is obvious which function is being called.
|
|
Suggested by @ppedrot
|
|
As noted by @ppedrot, the first is redundant. The patch is basically a renaming.
We didn't make the component optional yet, but this could happen in a
future patch.
|
|
module)
For the moment, there is an Error module in compilers-lib/ocamlbytecomp.cm(x)a
|
|
|
|
|
|
This allows a smooth addition of various unsafe flags without wreaking
havoc in the ML codebase.
|
|
|
|
The rational is that
1. further typing flags may be available in the future
2. it makes it easier to trace and document the argument
|
|
This patch splits pretty printing representation from IO operations.
- `Pp` is kept in charge of the abstract pretty printing representation.
- The `Feedback` module provides interface for doing printing IO.
The patch continues work initiated for 8.5 and has the following effects:
- The following functions in `Pp`: `pp`, `ppnl`, `pperr`, `pperrnl`,
`pperr_flush`, `pp_flush`, `flush_all`, `msg`, `msgnl`, `msgerr`,
`msgerrnl`, `message` are removed. `Feedback.msg_*` functions must be
used instead.
- Feedback provides different backends to handle output, currently,
`stdout`, `emacs` and CoqIDE backends are provided.
- Clients cannot specify flush policy anymore, thus `pp_flush` et al are
gone.
- `Feedback.feedback` takes an `edit_or_state_id` instead of the old
mix.
Lightly tested: Test-suite passes, Proof General and CoqIDE seem to work.
|
|
|
|
Fixes compilation of Coq with OCaml 4.03 beta 1.
|
|
Originally, rel-context was represented as:
Context.rel_context = Names.Name.t * Constr.t option * Constr.t
Now it is represented as:
Context.Rel.t = LocalAssum of Names.Name.t * Constr.t
| LocalDef of Names.Name.t * Constr.t * Constr.t
Originally, named-context was represented as:
Context.named_context = Names.Id.t * Constr.t option * Constr.t
Now it is represented as:
Context.Named.t = LocalAssum of Names.Id.t * Constr.t
| LocalDef of Names.Id.t * Constr.t * Constr.t
Motivation:
(1) In "tactics/hipattern.ml4" file we define "test_strict_disjunction"
function which looked like this:
let test_strict_disjunction n lc =
Array.for_all_i (fun i c ->
match (prod_assum (snd (decompose_prod_n_assum n c))) with
| [_,None,c] -> isRel c && Int.equal (destRel c) (n - i)
| _ -> false) 0 lc
Suppose that you do not know about rel-context and named-context.
(that is the case of people who just started to read the source code)
Merlin would tell you that the type of the value you are destructing
by "match" is:
'a * 'b option * Constr.t (* worst-case scenario *)
or
Named.Name.t * Constr.t option * Constr.t (* best-case scenario (?) *)
To me, this is akin to wearing an opaque veil.
It is hard to figure out the meaning of the values you are looking at.
In particular, it is hard to discover the connection between the value
we are destructing above and the datatypes and functions defined
in the "kernel/context.ml" file.
In this case, the connection is there, but it is not visible
(between the function above and the "Context" module).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now consider, what happens when the reader see the same function
presented in the following form:
let test_strict_disjunction n lc =
Array.for_all_i (fun i c ->
match (prod_assum (snd (decompose_prod_n_assum n c))) with
| [LocalAssum (_,c)] -> isRel c && Int.equal (destRel c) (n - i)
| _ -> false) 0 lc
If the reader haven't seen "LocalAssum" before, (s)he can use Merlin
to jump to the corresponding definition and learn more.
In this case, the connection is there, and it is directly visible
(between the function above and the "Context" module).
(2) Also, if we already have the concepts such as:
- local declaration
- local assumption
- local definition
and we describe these notions meticulously in the Reference Manual,
then it is a real pity not to reinforce the connection
of the actual code with the abstract description we published.
|
|
|
