| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviewed-by: herbelin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No need to create various mapping of lists when a filter would suffice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviewed-by: Zimmi48
|
|
It was deprecated in 8.12 and not used in the wild.
|
|
|
|
This allows to remove internal API from the mli as well.
|
|
- new clauses "hyp:", "concl:", "headhyp:" and "headconcl:" to restrict
match to an hypothesis or the conclusion, possibly only at the head
(like SearchHead in this latter case)
- new clause "is:" to search by kind of object (for some list of kinds)
- support for any combination of negations, disjunctions and conjunctions,
using a syntax close to that of intropatterns.
|
|
Current backtraces for tactics leave a bit to desire, for example
given the program:
```coq
Lemma u n : n + 0 = n.
rewrite plus_O_n.
```
the backtrace stops at:
```
Found no subterm matching "0 + ?M160" in the current goal.
Called from file "proofs/proof.ml", line 381, characters 4-42
Called from file "tactics/pfedit.ml", line 102, characters 31-58
Called from file "plugins/ltac/g_ltac.mlg", line 378, characters 8-84
```
Backtrace information `?info` is as of today optional in some tactics,
such as `tclZERO`, it doesn't cost a lot however to reify backtrace
information indeed in `tclZERO` and provide backtraces for all tactic
errors. The cost should be small if we are not in debug mode.
The backtrace for the failed rewrite is now:
```
Found no subterm matching "0 + ?M160" in the current goal.
Raised at file "pretyping/unification.ml", line 1827, characters 14-73
Called from file "pretyping/unification.ml", line 1929, characters 17-53
Called from file "pretyping/unification.ml", line 1948, characters 22-72
Called from file "pretyping/unification.ml", line 2020, characters 14-56
Re-raised at file "pretyping/unification.ml", line 2021, characters 66-73
Called from file "proofs/clenv.ml", line 254, characters 12-58
Called from file "proofs/clenvtac.ml", line 95, characters 16-53
Called from file "engine/proofview.ml", line 1110, characters 40-46
Called from file "engine/proofview.ml", line 1115, characters 10-34
Re-raised at file "clib/exninfo.ml", line 82, characters 4-38
Called from file "proofs/proof.ml", line 381, characters 4-42
Called from file "tactics/pfedit.ml", line 102, characters 31-58
Called from file "plugins/ltac/g_ltac.mlg", line 378, characters 8-84
```
which IMO is much better.
|
|
Reviewed-by: Matafou
Ack-by: SkySkimmer
Reviewed-by: gares
|
|
indirectly dependent in goal
Ack-by: Zimmi48
Reviewed-by: ppedrot
|
|
Reviewed-by: ejgallego
|
|
This is extracted from #9710, where we need the environment anyway to compute
iota rules on inductive types with let-bindings. The commit is self-contained,
so I think it could go directly in to save me a few rebases.
Furthermore, this is also related to #11707. Assuming we split cbn from the
other reduction machine, this allows to merge the "local" machine with
the general one, since after this PR they will have the same type. One less
reduction machine should make people happy.
|
|
|
|
This reverts commit 3c66c60e52b334482bcfe3d1d97bb77e4d011d18.
We instead add a warning in the manual and a kludge in the test-suite.
|
|
We need to record the transparency information in the libobject stack in
order for coqchk to not trip over the strategy information.
This is quite sketchy, though.
|
|
Copy tclWRAPFINALLY to tactics.ml
As per https://github.com/coq/coq/pull/12197#discussion_r418480525 and
https://gitter.im/coq/coq?at=5ead5c35347bd616304e83ef, we don't export
it from Proofview, because it seems somehow not primitive enough. But
we don't export it from Tactics because it is more of a tactical than a
tactic. But we don't export it from Tacticals because all of the
non-New tacticals there operate on `tactic`, not `Proofview.tactic`, and
all of the `New` tacticals that deal with multi-success things are
focussing, i.e., apply their arguments on each goal separately (and it
even says so in the comment on `New`), whereas it's important that
`tclWRAPFINALLY` doesn't introduce extra focussing.
|
|
|
|
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>
|
|
|
|
This is saner behavior making subst reversible, as discussed in #12139.
This also fixes #10812 and #12139.
In passing, we also simplify a bit the code of "subst_all".
|
|
|
|
This function was used almost everywhere with the wrapper around.
|
|
This encapsulates better the invariants of this function.
|
|
|
|
Instead, we register functions dynamically declaring the dependencies of the
scheme to be generated.
We had to fix the test-suite because an internal scheme name changed.
We could also tweak the internal flag of scheme dependencies, but in this
particular case it looks more like a bug from the previous implementation.
|
|
Reviewed-by: ppedrot
|
|
Ack-by: SkySkimmer
Reviewed-by: maximedenes
|
|
custom induction scheme
Reviewed-by: ppedrot
|
|
Reviewed-by: herbelin
|
|
This PR moves `Declare` to `vernac` which will hopefully allow to
unify it with `DeclareDef` and avoid exposing entry internals.
There are many tradeoffs to be made as interface and placement of
tactics is far from clear; I've tried to reach a minimally invasive
compromise:
- moved leminv to `ltac_plugin`; this is unused in the core codebase
and IMO for now it is the best place
- hook added for abstract; this should be cleaned up later
- hook added for scheme declaration; this should be cleaned up later
- separation of hints vernacular and "tactic" part should be also done
later, for now I've introduced a `declareUctx` module to avoid being
invasive there.
In particular this last point strongly suggest that for now, the best
place for `Class_tactics` would be also in `ltac`, but I've avoided
that for now too.
This partially supersedes #10951 for now and helps with #11492 .
|
|
This moves the vernacular part of hints to `vernac`; in particular, it
helps removing the declaration of constants as parts of the `tactic`
folder.
|
|
|
|
Rewriter needs a bit of work as it calls a removed function, but no
big deal.
|
|
This still needs API cleanup but we defer it to the moment we are
ready to make the internals private.
|
|
This makes the API more orthogonal and allows better structure in
future code.
|
|
If we remove all the legacy proof engine stuff, that would remove the
need for the view on proof almost entirely.
|
|
It seems to belong there, not in `tactics`
|
|
This makes sense as it is mandatory for the client.
|
|
We mark all the stuff scheduled to disappear in `Declare`, and remove
a couple of non-needed APIs.
|
|
As we are aiming to forbid low-level manipulation of proofs outside
`Declare`, we move the code from `Abstract` to `Declare`.
We remove `build_constant_by_tactic` from the public API.
|
|
We place creation and saving of interactive proofs in the same module;
this will allow to make `proof_entry` private, improving invariants
and control over clients, and to reduce the API [for example next
commit will move abstract declaration into this module, removing the
exported ad-hoc `build_constant_by_tactic`]
Next step will be to unify all the common code in the interactive /
non-interactive case; but we need to tweak the handling of obligations
first.
|
