| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As before, add a `bitwise as` tactic notation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All that really needed to be done was add an explicit intro before
nzinduct, but all the issues in this file could be fixed by moving n m p
before the colon, and I couldn't stop my self.
|
|
I believe this renaming makes it easier for new contributors to discover
the code of `ring`.
|
|
Reviewed-by: anton-trunov
|
|
The doc states it is deprecated since 1386cd9 but this was ages before the
deprecation mechanism existed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The bitwise tactic was performing `intros ?m`, and the name m got
used later in many proofs. I defined a tactic notation `bitwise as m`
to be able to provide the name for `m` explicitly.
I did not make the notation local, because it seems like it would be
useful for any clients using `bitwise` who want to avoid generated
names.
I have relatively little experience with writing Ltac and tactic notations,
so if my solution can be improved, please show me how.
|
|
|
|
|