| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This allows to factorize code and prevents the unnecessary use of back and
forth conversions between the various types of terms.
Note that functions from typing may now raise errors as PretypeError rather
than TypeError, because they call the proper wrapper. I think that they were
wrongly calling the kernel because of an overlook of open modules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previously, some splipped through and were caught by unrelated calls to
typeclass resolution.
|
|
side_effects. Partial solution to the handling of side effects
in proofview.
|
|
In `Ftactic` the number of results could desynchronise with the number
of goals when some goals were solved by side effect in a different
branch of a `DISPATCH`.
See [coq-bugs#4416](https://coq.inria.fr/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=4416).
|
|
|
|
Was PR#263: Fast lookup in named contexts
|
|
|
|
This avoids leakage of universes. Also makes
Program Lemma/Fact work again, it tries to solve the
remaining evars using the obligation tactic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hadn't realized that this PR uses OCaml's 4.03 inlined records
feature. I will advocate again for a switch to the latest OCaml stable
version, but meanwhile, let's revert. Sorry for the noise.
This reverts commit 3c47248abc27aa9c64120db30dcb0d7bf945bc70, reversing
changes made to ceb68d1d643ac65f500e0201f61e73cf22e6e2fb.
|
|
We get rid of tuples containing booleans (typically for universe
polymorphism) by replacing them with records.
The previously common idom:
if pi2 kind (* polymorphic *) then ... else ...
becomes:
if kind.polymorphic then ... else ...
To make the construction and destruction of these records lightweight,
the labels of boolean arguments for universe polymorphism are now
usually also called "polymorphic".
|
|
goal is under focus and which support returning a relevant output.
|
|
We untangle many dependencies on Ltac datastructures and modules from the
lower strata, resulting in a self-contained ltac/ folder. While not a plugin
yet, the change is now very easy to perform. The main API changes have been
documented in the dev/doc/changes file.
The patches are quite rough, and it may be the case that some parts of the
code can migrate back from ltac/ to a core folder. This should be decided on
a case-by-case basis, according to a more long-term consideration of what is
exactly Ltac-dependent and whatnot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add a boolean for refolding during reduction, and an option
that is off by default in 8.6, to turn refolding on in all reduction
functions, as in 8.5.
|
|
This legacy function is still used by destruct, and is a hotspot in various
examples from the wild. We hijack the check from Typeclass and perform a
double check at once not to mark unresolvable evars in vain a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
composition operator.
Short story:
This pull-request:
(1) removes the definition of the "right-to-left" function composition operator
(2) adds the definition of the "left-to-right" function composition operator
(3) rewrites the code relying on "right-to-left" function composition to rely on "left-to-right" function composition operator instead.
Long story:
In mathematics, function composition is traditionally denoted with ∘ operator.
Ocaml standard library does not provide analogous operator under any name.
Batteries Included provides provides two alternatives:
_ % _
and
_ %> _
The first operator one corresponds to the classical ∘ operator routinely used in mathematics.
I.e.:
(f4 % f3 % f2 % f1) x ≜ (f4 ∘ f3 ∘ f2 ∘ f1) x
We can call it "right-to-left" composition because:
- the function we write as first (f4) will be called as last
- and the function write as last (f1) will be called as first.
The meaning of the second operator is this:
(f1 %> f2 %> f3 %> f4) x ≜ (f4 ∘ f3 ∘ f2 ∘ f1) x
We can call it "left-to-right" composition because:
- the function we write as first (f1) will be called first
- and the function we write as last (f4) will be called last
That is, the functions are written in the same order in which we write and read them.
I think that it makes sense to prefer the "left-to-right" variant because
it enables us to write functions in the same order in which they will be actually called
and it thus better fits our culture
(we read/write from left to right).
|
|
|
