| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
This commit is essentially moving files around. In particular, the corresponding
plugin still relies on a mllib file rather than a mlpack one. Otherwise, this
causes link-time issues for third-party plugins depending on modules defined
in the Ltac plugin.
|
|
|
|
We defactorize the in_clause grammar entry to allow parsing of the "symmetry"
tactic when it has no arguments. Beforehand, the clause_dft_concl entry
accepted the empty stream, preventing the definition of symmetry as a mere
identifier.
|
|
There was no reason to keep them separate since quite a long time. Historically,
they were making Genarg depend or not on upper strata of the code, but since
it was moved to lib/ this is not justified anymore.
|
|
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".
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
