| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Reviewed-by: Zimmi48
|
|
It was deprecated in 8.12 and not used in the wild.
|
|
|
|
Ack-by: SkySkimmer
Reviewed-by: ppedrot
|
|
Ack-by: gares
Ack-by: ppedrot
|
|
Re-raising inside exception handlers must be done with care in order
to preserve backtraces; even if newer OCaml versions do a better job
in automatically spilling `%reraise` in places that matter, there is
no guarantee for that to happen.
I've done a best-effort pass of places that were re-raising
incorrectly, hopefully I got the logic right.
There is the special case of `Nametab.error_global_not_found` which is
raised many times in response to a `Not_found` error; IMHO this error
should be converted to something more specific, however the scope of
that change would be huge as to do easily...
|
|
runtime.
Reviewed-by: herbelin
|
|
Current backtraces for tactics leave a bit to desire, for example
given the program:
```coq
Lemma u n : n + 0 = n.
rewrite plus_O_n.
```
the backtrace stops at:
```
Found no subterm matching "0 + ?M160" in the current goal.
Called from file "proofs/proof.ml", line 381, characters 4-42
Called from file "tactics/pfedit.ml", line 102, characters 31-58
Called from file "plugins/ltac/g_ltac.mlg", line 378, characters 8-84
```
Backtrace information `?info` is as of today optional in some tactics,
such as `tclZERO`, it doesn't cost a lot however to reify backtrace
information indeed in `tclZERO` and provide backtraces for all tactic
errors. The cost should be small if we are not in debug mode.
The backtrace for the failed rewrite is now:
```
Found no subterm matching "0 + ?M160" in the current goal.
Raised at file "pretyping/unification.ml", line 1827, characters 14-73
Called from file "pretyping/unification.ml", line 1929, characters 17-53
Called from file "pretyping/unification.ml", line 1948, characters 22-72
Called from file "pretyping/unification.ml", line 2020, characters 14-56
Re-raised at file "pretyping/unification.ml", line 2021, characters 66-73
Called from file "proofs/clenv.ml", line 254, characters 12-58
Called from file "proofs/clenvtac.ml", line 95, characters 16-53
Called from file "engine/proofview.ml", line 1110, characters 40-46
Called from file "engine/proofview.ml", line 1115, characters 10-34
Re-raised at file "clib/exninfo.ml", line 82, characters 4-38
Called from file "proofs/proof.ml", line 381, characters 4-42
Called from file "tactics/pfedit.ml", line 102, characters 31-58
Called from file "plugins/ltac/g_ltac.mlg", line 378, characters 8-84
```
which IMO is much better.
|
|
Reviewed-by: Matafou
Ack-by: SkySkimmer
Reviewed-by: gares
|
|
|
|
This seems to be a pattern used quite a bit in the wild, it does not hurt
to be a bit more lenient to tolerate this kind of use. Interestingly the
API was already offering a similar generalization in some unrelated places.
We also backtrack on the change in Floats.FloatLemmas since it is an instance
of this phenomenon.
|
|
See #11840 for a motivation. I had to fix Floats.FloatLemmas because
it uses the same name for a notation and a term, and the fact this
unfold was working on this was clearly a bug. I hope nobody relies
on this kind of stuff in the wild.
Fixes #5764: "Cannot coerce ..." should be a runtime error.
Fixes #5159: "Cannot coerce ..." should not be an error.
Fixes #4925: unfold gives error on Admitted.
|
|
Reviewed-by: Zimmi48
Reviewed-by: jfehrle
Ack-by: ppedrot
|
|
Reviewed-by: ppedrot
|
|
Reviewed-by: herbelin
|
|
Reviewed-by: ejgallego
|
|
Ack-by: Zimmi48
Ack-by: ejgallego
Ack-by: herbelin
Ack-by: ppedrot
|
|
This is extracted from #9710, where we need the environment anyway to compute
iota rules on inductive types with let-bindings. The commit is self-contained,
so I think it could go directly in to save me a few rebases.
Furthermore, this is also related to #11707. Assuming we split cbn from the
other reduction machine, this allows to merge the "local" machine with
the general one, since after this PR they will have the same type. One less
reduction machine should make people happy.
|
|
Since we don't always have the call trace anymore, we explicitly
insert a catch of failures in TacAlias. The trace is then treated in
this catch rather than propagated to the underlying calls (a VFun?). I
hope this is doing the same.
The suggestion to use a tclOR is from P.-M. Pédrot.
Note: this is not fully ideal, the messages which were expecting a
trace should be rethought to take into account either that the calls
are not printed anymore, or to print them again.
|
|
Reviewed-by: Matafou
Reviewed-by: SkySkimmer
|
|
Useful for guarding calls to `unfold` or `cbv` to ensure that, e.g.,
`Opaque foo` doesn't break some automation which tries to unfold `foo`.
We have some timeouts in the strategy success file. We should not run
into issues, because we are not really testing how long these take. We
could just as well use `Timeout 60` or longer, we just want to make sure
the file dies more quickly rather than taking over 10^100 steps.
Note that this tactic does not play well with `abstract`; I have a
potentially controversial change that fixes this issue.
One of the lines in the doc comes from
https://github.com/coq/coq/pull/12129#issuecomment-619771556
Co-Authored-By: Pierre-Marie Pédrot <pierre-marie.pedrot@irif.fr>
Co-Authored-By: Théo Zimmermann <theo.zimmermann@inria.fr>
Co-Authored-By: Michael Soegtrop <7895506+MSoegtropIMC@users.noreply.github.com>
|
|
Part of the plan of #11840.
|
|
The API in `DeclareDef` should become the recommended API in `Declare`.
This greatly reduces the exposure of internals; we still have a large
offender in `Lemmas` but that will be taken care of in the next
commit; effectively removing quite some chunks from `declare.mli`.
This PR originally introduced a dependency cycle due to:
- `Declare`: uses `Vernacexpr.decl_notation list`
- `Vernacexpr`: uses `ComHint.hint_expr`
- `ComHint`: uses `Declare.declare_constant`
This is a real cycle in the sense that `ComHint` would have also move
to `DeclareDef` in the medium term.
There were quite a few ways to solve it, we have chosen to
move the hints ast to `Vernacexpr` as it is not very invasive
and seems consistent with the current style.
Alternatives, which could be considered at a later stage are for
example moving the notations AST to `Metasyntax`, having `Declare` not
to depend on `Vernacexpr` [which seems actually a good thing to do in
the medium term], reworking notation support more deeply...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The real list is computed by tok_using in CLexer.
|
|
Incidentally removing "discriminated", "(bfs)" and "(dfs)" from
keywords. It is enough to make them normal identifiers.
Note:
- keywords reserved by the tactics are: ** [= _eqn |- by using
- keywords reserved by ltac are: lazymatch multimatch ||
|
|
As per https://github.com/coq/coq/pull/12197#discussion_r418480525 and
https://gitter.im/coq/coq?at=5ead5c35347bd616304e83ef
|
|
Note that this slightly changes the semantics of backtracking across
`start ltac profiling`.
|
|
Fixes #12196
|
|
|
|
Reviewed-by: ppedrot
|
|
Ack-by: SkySkimmer
Reviewed-by: maximedenes
|
|
This PR moves `Declare` to `vernac` which will hopefully allow to
unify it with `DeclareDef` and avoid exposing entry internals.
There are many tradeoffs to be made as interface and placement of
tactics is far from clear; I've tried to reach a minimally invasive
compromise:
- moved leminv to `ltac_plugin`; this is unused in the core codebase
and IMO for now it is the best place
- hook added for abstract; this should be cleaned up later
- hook added for scheme declaration; this should be cleaned up later
- separation of hints vernacular and "tactic" part should be also done
later, for now I've introduced a `declareUctx` module to avoid being
invasive there.
In particular this last point strongly suggest that for now, the best
place for `Class_tactics` would be also in `ltac`, but I've avoided
that for now too.
This partially supersedes #10951 for now and helps with #11492 .
|
|
This moves the vernacular part of hints to `vernac`; in particular, it
helps removing the declaration of constants as parts of the `tactic`
folder.
|
|
Reviewed-by: SkySkimmer
Ack-by: herbelin
Reviewed-by: ppedrot
|
|
This still needs API cleanup but we defer it to the moment we are
ready to make the internals private.
|
|
If we remove all the legacy proof engine stuff, that would remove the
need for the view on proof almost entirely.
|
|
We place creation and saving of interactive proofs in the same module;
this will allow to make `proof_entry` private, improving invariants
and control over clients, and to reduce the API [for example next
commit will move abstract declaration into this module, removing the
exported ad-hoc `build_constant_by_tactic`]
Next step will be to unify all the common code in the interactive /
non-interactive case; but we need to tweak the handling of obligations
first.
|
|
|
|
This completes a pure Dune bootstrap of Coq.
There is still the question if we should modify `coqdep` so it does
output a dependency on `Init.Prelude.vo` in certain cases.
TODO: We still double-add `theories` and `plugins` [in coqinit and in
Dune], this should be easy to clean up.
Setting `libs_init_load_path` does give a correct build indeed;
however we still must call this for compatibility?
|
|
- Provide new helper functions in `Goptions` on the model of
`declare_bool_option_and_ref`;
- Use these helper functions in many parts of the code base
(encapsulates the corresponding references);
- Move almost all options from `declare_string_option` to
`declare_stringopt_option` (only "Warnings" continue to use the
former). This means that these options now support `Unset` to get
back to the default setting. Note that there is a naming
misalignment since `declare_int_option` is similar to
`declare_stringopt_option` and supports `Unset`. When "Warning" is
eventually migrated to support `Unset` as well, we can remove
`declare_string_option` and rename `declare_stringopt_option` to
`declare_string_option`.
- For some vernac options and flags that have an equivalent
command-line option or flag, implement it like the standard `-set`
and `-unset`.
|
|
This corresponds more naturally to the use we make of them, as we don't need
fast indexation but we instead keep pushing terms on top of them.
|
|
Reviewed-by: ppedrot
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
