| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can now write [[1, 3-5]:tac.] to apply [tac] on the subgoals
numbered 1 and 3 to 5.
|
|
|
|
The tentative fix in f9695eb4b (which I was afraid it might be too
strong, since it was implying failing more often) indeed broke other
things (see #4813).
|
|
Trying to now catch all unification errors, but without a clear view
at whether some errors could be tolerated at the point of checking the
type of the binding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This patch splits pretty printing representation from IO operations.
- `Pp` is kept in charge of the abstract pretty printing representation.
- The `Feedback` module provides interface for doing printing IO.
The patch continues work initiated for 8.5 and has the following effects:
- The following functions in `Pp`: `pp`, `ppnl`, `pperr`, `pperrnl`,
`pperr_flush`, `pp_flush`, `flush_all`, `msg`, `msgnl`, `msgerr`,
`msgerrnl`, `message` are removed. `Feedback.msg_*` functions must be
used instead.
- Feedback provides different backends to handle output, currently,
`stdout`, `emacs` and CoqIDE backends are provided.
- Clients cannot specify flush policy anymore, thus `pp_flush` et al are
gone.
- `Feedback.feedback` takes an `edit_or_state_id` instead of the old
mix.
Lightly tested: Test-suite passes, Proof General and CoqIDE seem to work.
|
|
Return the most appropriate evar_map for commands that can run on
non-focused proofs (like Check, Show and debug printers) so that
universes and existentials are printed correctly (they are global
to the proof). The API is backwards compatible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "Classic" string is still hard coded here in there in the system, but
not in STM.
BTW, the use of an hard coded "Classic" value suggests nobody really uses
"Set Default Proof Mode" in .v files.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Return an evar_map with the right universes, when there are no focused
subgoals or the proof is finished.
|
|
This fix is too restrictive. Still, opening a goal for an evar with a
pending conv_pb is unsafe since the user may prove (instantiate it) in
a way not compatible with the conv_pb.
Assigning an evar, in its lowest level API, should enforce that all
related conv_pbs are satisfied by the instance.
This also poses a UI problem, since there is not way to see these
conv_pbs. One could print a goal and say: look, the proof term you give
must validate this equation...
Given that the good fix is not obvious, we revert!
This reverts commit a0e792236c9666df1069753f8f807c12f713dcfb.
|
|
This fixes a class of bugs like
refine foo; tactic.
where tactic fails (by resuming the remaining, unsolvable, problems) while
in 8.4 refine was failing.
It is not clear to us (Maxime and myself) if we should call
consider_remaining_unif_problems instead of check_problems_are_solved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instead of mangling the AST in order to interpret par: we remember the goal
position to focus on it first and evaluate then the underlying vernacular
expression.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixes compilation of Coq with OCaml 4.03 beta 1.
|
|
|
|
The environment put in the goals was not the right one and could lead to
various leaks.
|
|
|
|
I propose to change the name of the "Util.compose" function to "%".
Reasons:
1. If one wants to express function composition,
then the new name enables us to achieve this goal easier.
2. In "Batteries Included" they had made the same choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some functions were left in the old paradigm because they are only used by the
unification algorithms, so they are not worthwhile to change for now.
|
|
|
|
The current solution may not be totally ideal though. We generate names for
anonymous evars on the fly at printing time, based on the Evar_kind data they
are wearing. This means in particular that the printed name of an anonymous
evar may change in the future because some unrelate evar has been solved or
introduced.
|
|
Originally, rel-context was represented as:
Context.rel_context = Names.Name.t * Constr.t option * Constr.t
Now it is represented as:
Context.Rel.t = LocalAssum of Names.Name.t * Constr.t
| LocalDef of Names.Name.t * Constr.t * Constr.t
Originally, named-context was represented as:
Context.named_context = Names.Id.t * Constr.t option * Constr.t
Now it is represented as:
Context.Named.t = LocalAssum of Names.Id.t * Constr.t
| LocalDef of Names.Id.t * Constr.t * Constr.t
Motivation:
(1) In "tactics/hipattern.ml4" file we define "test_strict_disjunction"
function which looked like this:
let test_strict_disjunction n lc =
Array.for_all_i (fun i c ->
match (prod_assum (snd (decompose_prod_n_assum n c))) with
| [_,None,c] -> isRel c && Int.equal (destRel c) (n - i)
| _ -> false) 0 lc
Suppose that you do not know about rel-context and named-context.
(that is the case of people who just started to read the source code)
Merlin would tell you that the type of the value you are destructing
by "match" is:
'a * 'b option * Constr.t (* worst-case scenario *)
or
Named.Name.t * Constr.t option * Constr.t (* best-case scenario (?) *)
To me, this is akin to wearing an opaque veil.
It is hard to figure out the meaning of the values you are looking at.
In particular, it is hard to discover the connection between the value
we are destructing above and the datatypes and functions defined
in the "kernel/context.ml" file.
In this case, the connection is there, but it is not visible
(between the function above and the "Context" module).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now consider, what happens when the reader see the same function
presented in the following form:
let test_strict_disjunction n lc =
Array.for_all_i (fun i c ->
match (prod_assum (snd (decompose_prod_n_assum n c))) with
| [LocalAssum (_,c)] -> isRel c && Int.equal (destRel c) (n - i)
| _ -> false) 0 lc
If the reader haven't seen "LocalAssum" before, (s)he can use Merlin
to jump to the corresponding definition and learn more.
In this case, the connection is there, and it is directly visible
(between the function above and the "Context" module).
(2) Also, if we already have the concepts such as:
- local declaration
- local assumption
- local definition
and we describe these notions meticulously in the Reference Manual,
then it is a real pity not to reinforce the connection
of the actual code with the abstract description we published.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
