| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is not needed, as the terms are then checked up to unification or
convertibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
(It was reducing also in hypotheses.)
|
|
calls are logged too. Using appropriate printer for reparsability of
the output.
|
|
|
|
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).
|
|
|
|
"Context.{Rel,Named}.fold_constr"
|
|
|
|
mainly concerning referring to "Context.{Rel,Named}.get_{id,value,type}" functions.
If multiple modules define a function with a same name, e.g.:
Context.{Rel,Named}.get_type
those calls were prefixed with a corresponding prefix
to make sure that it is obvious which function is being called.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This was showing up in some of Jason's examples, where an abstract had to
compute the weak head form of a huge term in order to find the corresponding
implicit arguments.
|
|
This was an overlook. There was no reason to let it in the tactics/ folder,
as is was semantically part of the Ltac implementation.
|
|
|
|
Suggested by @ppedrot
|
|
As noted by @ppedrot, the first is redundant. The patch is basically a renaming.
We didn't make the component optional yet, but this could happen in a
future patch.
|
|
In some cases prior to this patch, there were two cases for the same
error function, one taking a location, the other not.
We unify them by using an option parameter, in the line with recent
changes in warnings and feedback.
This implies a bit of clean up in some places, but more importantly, is
the preparation for subsequent patches making `Loc.location` opaque,
change that could be use to improve modularity and allow a more
functional implementation strategy --- for example --- of the
beautifier.
|
|
Fixing by copying what Matthieu did for Clenvtac.clenv_refine.
|
|
|
|
Modulo delta for types should be fully transparent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
when checking that the rewrite relation is homogeneous in
setoid_rewrite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When defining a (co)recursive inductive with primitive projections on,
which lacks eta-conversion and hence dependent elimination, build only
the associated non-dependent elimination principles, and warn about
this. Also make the printing of the status of an inductive
w.r.t. projections and eta conversion explicit in Print and About.
|
|
We apply this patch to trunk for integration in 8.6 instead.
This reverts commit 715f547816addf3e2e9dc288327fcbcee8c6d47f.
|
|
module)
For the moment, there is an Error module in compilers-lib/ocamlbytecomp.cm(x)a
|
|
|
|
whd_zeta now takes an evar_map and looks in evar instances. This changes
the behavior of whd_zeta e.g. on let x := ?t in x
|
|
|
|
This is a reimplementation of Hugo's PR#117.
We are trying to address the problem that the name of some reduction functions
was not saying what they were doing (e.g. whd_betadeltaiota was doing let-in
reduction). Like PR#117, we are careful that no function changed semantics
without changing the names. Porting existing ML code should be a matter of
renamings a few function calls.
Also, we introduce more precise reduction flags fMATCH, fFIX, fCOFIX
collectively denominated iota.
We renamed the following functions:
Closure.betadeltaiota -> Closure.all
Closure.betadeltaiotanolet -> Closure.allnolet
Reductionops.beta -> Closure.beta
Reductionops.zeta -> Closure.zeta
Reductionops.betaiota -> Closure.betaiota
Reductionops.betaiotazeta -> Closure.betaiotazeta
Reductionops.delta -> Closure.delta
Reductionops.betalet -> Closure.betazeta
Reductionops.betadelta -> Closure.betadeltazeta
Reductionops.betadeltaiota -> Closure.all
Reductionops.betadeltaiotanolet -> Closure.allnolet
Closure.no_red -> Closure.nored
Reductionops.nored -> Closure.nored
Reductionops.nf_betadeltaiota -> Reductionops.nf_all
Reductionops.whd_betadelta -> Reductionops.whd_betadeltazeta
Reductionops.whd_betadeltaiota -> Reductionops.whd_all
Reductionops.whd_betadeltaiota_nolet -> Reductionops.whd_allnolet
Reductionops.whd_betadelta_stack -> Reductionops.whd_betadeltazeta_stack
Reductionops.whd_betadeltaiota_stack -> Reductionops.whd_all_stack
Reductionops.whd_betadeltaiota_nolet_stack -> Reductionops.whd_allnolet_stack
Reductionops.whd_betadelta_state -> Reductionops.whd_betadeltazeta_state
Reductionops.whd_betadeltaiota_state -> Reductionops.whd_all_state
Reductionops.whd_betadeltaiota_nolet_state -> Reductionops.whd_allnolet_state
Reductionops.whd_eta -> Reductionops.shrink_eta
Tacmach.pf_whd_betadeltaiota -> Tacmach.pf_whd_all
Tacmach.New.pf_whd_betadeltaiota -> Tacmach.New.pf_whd_all
And removed the following ones:
Reductionops.whd_betaetalet
Reductionops.whd_betaetalet_stack
Reductionops.whd_betaetalet_state
Reductionops.whd_betadeltaeta_stack
Reductionops.whd_betadeltaeta_state
Reductionops.whd_betadeltaeta
Reductionops.whd_betadeltaiotaeta_stack
Reductionops.whd_betadeltaiotaeta_state
Reductionops.whd_betadeltaiotaeta
They were unused and having some reduction functions perform eta is confusing
as whd_all and nf_all don't do it.
|
|
|
|
On the user side, coqtop and coqc take a list of warning names or categories
after -w. No prefix means activate the warning, a "-" prefix means deactivate
it, and "+" means turn the warning into an error. Special categories include
"all", and "default" which contains the warnings enabled by default.
We also provide a vernacular Set Warnings which takes the same flags as argument.
Note that coqc now prints warnings.
The name and category of a warning are printed with the warning itself.
On the developer side, Feedback.msg_warning is still accessible, but the
recommended way to print a warning is in two steps:
1) create it by:
let warn_my_warning =
CWarnings.create ~name:"my-warning" ~category:"my-category"
(fun args -> Pp.strbrk ...)
2) print it by:
warn_my_warning args
|
|
Fix bug in Shrink obligations with Program in the process.
Fix implementation of shrink for abstract proofs
- Update doc in term.mli to reflect the fact that let-in's
are part of what is returned by [decompose_lam_assum].
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use a much dumber algorithm to recognize the shape of equalities.
|
