| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
|
|
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: vbgl
|
|
Reviewed-by: Zimmi48
Reviewed-by: jfehrle
Ack-by: ppedrot
|
|
Reviewed-by: ejgallego
|
|
Reviewed-by: ppedrot
|
|
This is already protected by then enter block.
|
|
The inner body was not raising any exception since it was in the monad,
and even if it did so, the enter block would have caught it.
|
|
Reviewed-by: herbelin
|
|
Reviewed-by: ejgallego
|
|
Ack-by: Zimmi48
Ack-by: ejgallego
Ack-by: herbelin
Ack-by: ppedrot
|
|
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>
|
|
|
|
multiple scopes for the same inductive)
|
|
Reviewed-by: maximedenes
|
|
Part of the plan of #11840.
|
|
Ack-by: Zimmi48
Reviewed-by: ppedrot
|
|
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...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviewed-by: Matafou
Reviewed-by: SkySkimmer
Reviewed-by: ppedrot
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 ||
|
|
Reviewed-by: gares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We will remove this modules and submit the overlays once the
refactoring is done as to avoid churn.
|
|
This is needed to make this low-level entry structures privates;
moreover, the code seems much clearer using the higher-level API.
Some more cleanup needs to be done but this is clearly a step forward
IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
