| 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.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
This removes a dependency on wit_tactic in Constrintern.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
In some cases prior to this patch, there were two cases for the same
error function, one taking a location, the other not.
We unify them by using an option parameter, in the line with recent
changes in warnings and feedback.
This implies a bit of clean up in some places, but more importantly, is
the preparation for subsequent patches making `Loc.location` opaque,
change that could be use to improve modularity and allow a more
functional implementation strategy --- for example --- of the
beautifier.
|
|
match.""
We apply this patch to trunk so that it is integrated in 8.6.
This reverts commit 0eb08b70f0c576e58912c1fc3ef74f387ad465be.
|
|
|
|
module)
For the moment, there is an Error module in compilers-lib/ocamlbytecomp.cm(x)a
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This reverts commit bde36d4b00185065628324d8ca71994f84eae244.
|
|
This reverts commit c4ce1baa9f66210ebc1909988b3dd8baa1b8ef27.
|
|
EXTEND and""
This reverts commit eb9216e544cb5fce4347052f42e9452a822c2f64.
|
|
This reverts commit fb1b7b084bcbbbc176040fcadeac00aee6b1e462.
|
|
VERNAC EXTEND.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
