| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
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.
|
|
As noticed by C. Cohen it was confusingly different from standard
notation.
|
|
Fix test-suite files
|
|
Add an option to force backtracking at toplevel, which
is used by default when calling typeclasses eauto on a set of goals.
They might be depended on by other subgoals, so the tactic should
be backtracking by default, a once can make it not backtrack.
|
|
Fix typo in proofview
|
|
with full backtracking across multiple goals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
presence of entries starting with a non-terminal such as "b ^2".
|
|
simpler re-printing of assert.
Also fixing the precedence for printing "by" clause.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Introduced by b21fefc0ec0aab2560d0b654f1a1f4203898388b
|
|
This is the "error resiliency" mode for STM
|
|
They can still be used at the toplevel.
|
|
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 reverts commit 45748e4efae8630cc13b0199dfcc9803341e8cd8.
|
|
|
|
|
|
An Ltac trace printing mechanism was introduced in 8.4 which was
inadvertedly modified by a series of commits such as 8e10368c3,
91f44f1da7a, ...
It was also sometimes buggy, iirc, when entering ML tactics which
themselves were calling ltac code.
It got really bad in 8.5 as in:
Tactic Notation "f" constr(x) := apply x. Ltac g x := f x.
Goal False.
idtac; f I. (* bad location reporting *)
g I. (* was referring to tactic name "Top.Top#<>#1" *)
which this commit fixes.
I don't have a clear idea of what would be the best ltac tracing
mechanism, but to avoid it to be broken without being noticed, I
started to add some tests.
Eventually, it might be worth that an Ltac expert brainstrom on it!
|
|
"par: tac" is a terminator, if it fails we can admit all focused goals
and continue.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
This is suboptimal, because mutation leaves room for subtle bugs, but
rewriting @tebbi's code to be functional was a pain, and not something I
could figure out how to do easily. I'm working under the assumption
that there is no sharing in a single treenode, which I'm not completely
sure is valid. That said, a few simple tests seem to indicate that this
works as expected.
|
|
This add LtacProfiling. Much of the code was written by Tobias Tebbi
(@tebbi), and Paul A. Steckler was invaluable in porting the code to Coq
v8.5 and Coq trunk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
