 11 Feb, 2016 30 commits


Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored
Before they were not, for example: Check ('10 + '10 )%L. (* prints ('10 + '10)%L *) Eval simpl in ('10 + '10 )%L. (* prints (Lit 10 + Lit 10)%L *) The notation added by this comment is ambigious, for example the notation '10 + '10 is used for both: BinOp PlusOp (Lit (LitNat 10)) (Lit (LitNat 10)) BinOp PlusOp (of_val (LitV (LitNat 10))) (of_val (LitV (LitNat 10))) But fortunatelly, these terms are convertible. Note that literals 'x are now parsed as values (as a LitV), but still pretty printed when they appear as expressions (as a Lit).

Ralf Jung authored

Ralf Jung authored
globalC > globalF New notation: iPropG, iFunctorG

Ralf Jung authored

Ralf Jung authored
Introduce the notion of "Frame Shift Assertions", and use to prove the rules about inv and auth at once for pvs and wp Yeah, the name is horrible... but on the plus side, I think it should be possible to show that atomic triples and atomic shifts are also frame shift assertions, and then we get all this stuff for them for free.

Robbert Krebbers authored
This reverts commit 24fa20e5. Although these symmetric variants sometimes look "better", they are really annoying and should IMHO never be used: 1.) For lemmas there is now a choice between >= and <=. Since there is no longer a canonical choice, it is very easy to introduce a lot of inconsistencies in statements of lemmas. 2.) For automation the situation becomes annoying, you have to built in stuff for both >= and <=. That is very errorprone. 3.) For N and Z the notions x <= y and y >= x are not even convertible! That means that done/by does not solve x <= y if you have y >= x and if avoids you applying certain lemmas.

Ralf Jung authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

Ralf Jung authored

Ralf Jung authored

Ralf Jung authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

Ralf Jung authored

Ralf Jung authored

Ralf Jung authored

Ralf Jung authored

Ralf Jung authored

Ralf Jung authored

Ralf Jung authored

Ralf Jung authored

Ralf Jung authored

Ralf Jung authored

Ralf Jung authored

Ralf Jung authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored
Instead, I separate it into a total function and a predicate describe whether the action is allowed or not. This has some advantages: * It is much easier to deal with total functions and predicates in Coq than with functions into option. * Already existing functions do not need to be wrapped. Instead, when using a local update you end up with a sensible side condition as a Coq Prop. * The definition of local updates (and all CMRA instances) no longer depend on option.

Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

 10 Feb, 2016 10 commits


Ralf Jung authored

Ralf Jung authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

Ralf Jung authored

Ralf Jung authored

Ralf Jung authored

Ralf Jung authored

Robbert Krebbers authored
