1. 15 Jul, 2020 1 commit
  2. 06 Apr, 2020 1 commit
    • Tej Chajed's avatar
      Add support for pure names in intro patterns · 1375d6aa
      Tej Chajed authored
      Notably this support relies on string to identifier conversion, which
      works natively using Ltac2 in Coq 8.11+ and with a plugin
      (https://github.com/ppedrot/coq-string-ident) in Coq 8.10. To use it,
      you must replace intro_patterns.string_to_ident_hook with a real
      implementation; see https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/string-ident for a
      working implementation that works with Coq 8.11 (using Ltac2).
      
      The syntax is %H (within a string intro pattern). This is technically
      backwards-incompatible, because this was previously supported and parsed
      as % and H separately. To restore the old behavior, separate with a
      space, eg [% H].
      1375d6aa
  3. 18 Feb, 2020 2 commits
  4. 29 Apr, 2019 1 commit
  5. 25 Dec, 2018 1 commit
  6. 13 Dec, 2018 1 commit
  7. 27 Feb, 2018 1 commit
  8. 22 Nov, 2017 1 commit
  9. 13 Nov, 2017 1 commit
    • Robbert Krebbers's avatar
      Improved treatment of anonymous hypotheses in the proof mode. · bb3584e7
      Robbert Krebbers authored
      The proof mode now explicitly keeps track of anonymous hypotheses (i.e.
      hypotheses that are introduced by the introduction pattern `?`). Consider:
      
        Lemma foo {M} (P Q R : uPred M) : P -∗ (Q ∗ R) -∗ Q ∗ P.
        Proof. iIntros "? [H ?]". iFrame "H". iFrame. Qed.
      
      After the `iIntros`, the goal will be:
      
        _ : P
        "H" : Q
        _ : R
        --------------------------------------∗
        Q ∗ P
      
      Anonymous hypotheses are displayed in a special way (`_ : P`). An important
      property of the new anonymous hypotheses is that it is no longer possible to
      refer to them by name, whereas before, anonymous hypotheses were given some
      arbitrary fresh name (typically prefixed by `~`).
      
      Note tactics can still operate on these anonymous hypotheses. For example, both
      `iFrame` and `iAssumption`, as well as the symbolic execution tactics, will
      use them. The only thing that is not possible is to refer to them yourself,
      for example, in an introduction, specialization or selection pattern.
      
      Advantages of the new approach:
      
      - Proofs become more robust as one cannot accidentally refer to anonymous
        hypotheses by their fresh name.
      - Fresh name generation becomes considerably easier. Since anonymous hypotheses
        are internally represented by natural numbers (of type `N`), we can just fold
        over the hypotheses and take the max plus one. This thus solve issue #101.
      bb3584e7
  10. 27 Oct, 2017 2 commits
  11. 27 Apr, 2017 1 commit
  12. 28 Mar, 2017 1 commit
  13. 14 Mar, 2017 1 commit
    • Robbert Krebbers's avatar
      Extend specialization patterns. · 87a8a19c
      Robbert Krebbers authored
      - Support for a `//` modifier to close the goal using `done`.
      - Support for framing in the `[#]` specialization pattern for
        persistent premises, i.e. `[# $H1 $H2]`
      - Add new "auto framing patterns" `[$]`, `[# $]` and `>[$]` that
        will try to solve the premise by framing. Hypothesis that are
        not framed are carried over to the next goal.
      87a8a19c
  14. 18 Feb, 2017 1 commit
  15. 06 Feb, 2017 1 commit
  16. 30 Jan, 2017 1 commit
  17. 29 Jan, 2017 1 commit
  18. 05 Jan, 2017 1 commit
  19. 03 Jan, 2017 1 commit
  20. 28 Dec, 2016 1 commit
  21. 09 Dec, 2016 1 commit
  22. 24 Nov, 2016 1 commit
  23. 19 Nov, 2016 1 commit
  24. 25 Oct, 2016 2 commits
    • Robbert Krebbers's avatar
      Generalize update tactics into iMod and iModIntro for modalities. · fc30ca08
      Robbert Krebbers authored
      There are now two proof mode tactics for dealing with modalities:
      
      - `iModIntro` : introduction of a modality
      - `iMod pm_trm as (x1 ... xn) "ipat"` : eliminate a modality
      
      The behavior of these tactics can be controlled by instances of the `IntroModal`
      and `ElimModal` type class. We have declared instances for later, except 0,
      basic updates and fancy updates. The tactic `iMod` is flexible enough that it
      can also eliminate an updates around a weakest pre, and so forth.
      
      The corresponding introduction patterns of these tactics are `!>` and `>`.
      
      These tactics replace the tactics `iUpdIntro`, `iUpd` and `iTimeless`.
      
      Source of backwards incompatability: the introduction pattern `!>` is used for
      introduction of arbitrary modalities. It used to introduce laters by stripping
      of a later of each hypotheses.
      fc30ca08
    • Robbert Krebbers's avatar
      Rename rvs -> bupd (basic update), pvs -> fupd (fancy update). · 1b85d654
      Robbert Krebbers authored
      And also rename the corresponding proof mode tactics.
      1b85d654
  25. 09 Sep, 2016 1 commit
    • Robbert Krebbers's avatar
      Support for specialization of P₁ -★ .. -★ Pₙ -★ Q where Q is persistent. · 090aaea3
      Robbert Krebbers authored
      Before this commit, given "HP" : P and "H" : P -★ Q with Q persistent, one
      could write:
      
        iSpecialize ("H" with "#HP")
      
      to eliminate the wand in "H" while keeping the resource "HP". The lemma:
      
        own_valid : own γ x ⊢ ✓ x
      
      was the prototypical example where this pattern (using the #) was used.
      
      However, the pattern was too limited. For example, given "H" : P₁ -★ P₂ -★ Q",
      one could not write iSpecialize ("H" with "#HP₁") because P₂ -★ Q is not
      persistent, even when Q is.
      
      So, instead, this commit introduces the following tactic:
      
        iSpecialize pm_trm as #
      
      which allows one to eliminate implications and wands while being able to use
      all hypotheses to prove the premises, as well as being able to use all
      hypotheses to prove the resulting goal.
      
      In the case of iDestruct, we now check whether all branches of the introduction
      pattern start with an `#` (moving the hypothesis to the persistent context) or
      `%` (moving the hypothesis to the pure Coq context). If this is the case, we
      allow one to use all hypotheses for proving the premises, as well as for proving
      the resulting goal.
      090aaea3
  26. 05 Aug, 2016 1 commit
    • Robbert Krebbers's avatar
      More introduction patterns. · 4d8c4ac8
      Robbert Krebbers authored
      Also make those for introduction and elimination more symmetric:
      
        !%   pure introduction         %        pure elimination
        !#   always introduction       #        always elimination
        !>   later introduction        > pat    timeless later elimination
        !==> view shift introduction   ==> pat  view shift elimination
      4d8c4ac8
  27. 30 Jun, 2016 1 commit
  28. 02 May, 2016 1 commit
  29. 25 Apr, 2016 1 commit
  30. 19 Apr, 2016 2 commits
  31. 12 Apr, 2016 1 commit
  32. 11 Apr, 2016 1 commit