| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
at least when f is an evaluable reference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
reference" and "simpl pattern" in the code (maybe we should have
merged them instead, but I finally decided to enforce their
difference, even if some compatibility is to be preversed - the idea
is that at some time "simpl reference" would only call a weak-head
simpl (or eventually cbn), leading e.g. to reduce 2+n into S(1+n)
rather than S(S(n)) which could be useful for better using induction
hypotheses.
In the process we also implement the following:
- 'simpl "+"' is accepted to reduce all applicative subterms whose
head symbol is written "+" (in the toplevel scope); idem for
vm_compute and native_compute
- 'simpl reference' works even if reference has maximally inserted
implicit arguments (this solves the "simpl fst" incompatibility)
- compatibility of ltac expressions referring to vm_compute and
native_compute with functor application should now work (i.e.
vm_compute and native_compute are now taken into account in
tacsubst.ml)
- for compatibility, "simpl eq" (assuming no maximal implicit args in
eq) or "simpl @eq" to mean "simpl (eq _ _)" are still allowed.
By the way, is "mul" on nat defined optimally? "3*n" simplifies to
"n+(n+(n+0))". Are there some advantages of this compared to have it
simplified to "n+n+n" (i.e. to "(n+n)+n").
|
|
- drops all Defined entries from the evar map (applying the subst to the
initial evar and the undefined evars types).
- call Gc.compact
Now the question is: where should these two commands be documented?
|
|
Observing that systematic eager evar unification makes unification
works better, for instance in setoid rewrite (ATBR, SemiRing.v), we
add a new flag use_evars_eagerly_in_conv_on_closed_terms which is put
to true only in Rewrite.rewrite_core_unif_flags (empirically, this
makes the "rewrite" from rewrite.ml working again on examples which
were previously treated by use_metas_eagerly_in_conv_on_closed_terms).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The name is chosen in accordance to Ltac's syntax. In particular [refine] prints as Ltac's refine, which is not entirely correct (Ltac's refine does some βι-reduction after refinement). Maybe it would be better to give make it clear that it is a different refine. Still in refine, the constr is printed without taking into account the new evars, which, apart from potentially getting the order of the goals wrong, prints new evars as ?x instead of ?[x]. A printer for terms with new evars will be necessary.
In the case of [V82.tactic], the name is just <unknown> because there is no way to retrieve any information. It won't appear in the first level of info in Ltac, however, if the user would require a deeper trace, he may see internal tactics (Tactics defined with TACTIC EXTEND also have weird, unparsable, internal names).
|
|
Hence dispatches are printed as dispatches rather than sequences.
|
|
Called with [Info n tac], runs [tac] and prints its info trace unfolding [n] level of tactic names ([0] for no unfolding at all).
|
|
|
|
|
|
The main change is that selection of subterm is made similar whether
the given term is fully applied or not.
- The selection of subterm now works as follows depending on whether
the "at" is given, of whether the subterm is fully applied or not,
and whether there are incompatible subterms matching the pattern. In
particular, we have:
"at" given
| subterm fully applied
| | incompatible subterms
| | |
Y Y - it works like in 8.4
Y N - this was broken in 8.4 ("at" was ineffective and it was finding
all subterms syntactically equal to the first one which matches)
N Y Y it now finds all subterms like the first one which matches
while in 8.4 it used to fail (I hope it is not a too risky in-draft
for a semantics we would regret...) (e.g. "destruct (S _)" on
goal "S x = S y + S x" now selects the two occurrences of "S x"
while it was failing before)
N Y N it works like in 8.4
N N - it works like in 8.4, selecting all subterms like the
first one which matches
- Note that the "historical" semantics, when looking for a subterm, to
select all subterms that syntactically match the first subterm to
match the pattern (looking from left to right) is now internally called
"like first".
- Selection of subterms can now find the type by pattern-matching (useful e.g.
for "induction (nat_rect _ _ _ _)")
- A version of Unification.w_unify w/o any conversion is used for
finding the subterm: it could be easily replaced by an other
matching algorithm.
In particular, "destruct H" now works on a goal such as "H:True -> x<=y |- P y".
Secondary change is in the interpretation of terms with existential
variables:
- When several arguments are given, interpretation is delayed at the
time of execution
- Because we aim at eventually accepting "edestruct c" with unresolved
holes in c, we need the sigma obtained from c to be an extension of
the sigma of the tactics, while before, we just type-checked c
independently of the sigma of the tactic
- Finishing the resolution of evars (using type classes, candidates,
pending conversion problems) is made slightly cleaner: it now takes
three states: a term is evaluated in state sigma, leading to state
sigma' >= sigma, with evars finally solved in state sigma'' >=
sigma'; we solve evars in the diff of sigma' and sigma and report
the solution in sigma''
- We however renounce to give now a success semantics to "edestruct c"
when "c" has unresolved holes, waiting instead for a decision on
what to do in the case of a similar eapply (see mail to coqdev).
An auxiliary change is that an "in" clause can be attached to each component
of a "destruct t, u, v", etc.
Incidentally, make_abstraction does not do evar resolution itself any longer.
|
|
|
|
an updated evar_map, as pattern is working up to universe equalities
that must be kept. Straightforward adaptation of the code depending on
this.
|
|
Otherwise I risked catching errors from the argument functions when I wanted to catch size mismatch to add information to errors.
|
|
|
|
9f51aafebd5f3a00dabfe056772a300830b3c430 )
|
|
of a break.
|
|
future goals).
Fixes #3757. Thanks to Hugo for helping pinpoint the issue.
|
|
|
|
defined and the file providing the primitives.
The datatypes are defined in [Proofview_monad], previous [Proofview_monad] is now called [Logic_monad] since it is more generic since the refactoring.
|
|
ret -> return, bind -> (>>=), etc… So that monads expose a [Monad.S] signature. Also Proofview now exposes the [Monad.S] signature directly rather than in a [Monad.S] subdirectory.
|
|
[on_advance] gave almost no gain in readability, while costing a closure.
|
|
|
|
dispatch.
Leads to clearer an more efficient code.
|
|
For optimisation purposes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is, after all, a generic function about lists.
|
|
combinators.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Unsafe module is for unsafe tactics which cannot be done without anytime soon. Whereas V82 indicates a function which we want to get rid of and that shouldn't be used in a new function.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As simple as this looks, there's been some quite subtle issues in doing this modification, there may be bugs left.
|
|
|
|
|
|
(More thinking needed)
|
|
Makes the monad more flexible as it will be easier to add new components to the concrete state of the tactic monad.
The Proofview module is also organised in a more abstract way with dedicated submodules to access various parts of the state or writer.
|
|
Changes in the implementation details had unwittingly changed the order in which Grab Existential Variables displayed the goals.
|
|
|
|
Uses the new architecture which allows to keep track of all new evars. The [future_goals] are flushed at the end of the tactics, the [principal_future_goal] is ignored.
|
