1. 20 Dec, 2017 1 commit
2. 07 Dec, 2017 1 commit
3. 05 Dec, 2017 2 commits
4. 30 Nov, 2017 2 commits
5. 14 Nov, 2017 1 commit
6. 13 Nov, 2017 1 commit
7. 11 Nov, 2017 1 commit
8. 09 Nov, 2017 4 commits
9. 08 Nov, 2017 3 commits
10. 04 Nov, 2017 1 commit
11. 01 Nov, 2017 3 commits
• Hide the proof mode entailment behind a definition. · 8574d1ea
Robbert Krebbers authored
```This solves issue #100: the proof mode notation is sometimes not printed. As
Ralf discovered, the problem is that there are two overlapping notations:

```coq
Notation "P ⊢ Q" := (uPred_entails P Q).
```

And the "proof mode" notation:

```
Notation "Γ '--------------------------------------' □ Δ '--------------------------------------' ∗ Q" :=
(of_envs (Envs Γ Δ) ⊢ Q%I).
```

These two notations overlap, so, when having a "proof mode" goal of the shape
`of_envs (Envs Γ Δ) ⊢ Q%I`, how do we know which notation is Coq going to pick
for pretty printing this goal? As we have seen, this choice depends on the
import order (since both notations appear in different files), and as such, Coq
sometimes (unintendedly) uses the first notation instead of the latter.

The idea of this commit is to wrap `of_envs (Envs Γ Δ) ⊢ Q%I` into a definition
so that there is no ambiguity for the pretty printer anymore.```
• Remove notations for bi_bare and bi_persistently. · a38db108
Jacques-Henri Jourdan authored
```(□ P) now means (bi_bare (bi_persistently P)).

This is motivated by the fact that these two modalities are rarely
used separately.

In the case of an affine BI, we keep the □ notation. This means that a
bi_bare is inserted each time we use □. Hence, a few adaptations need
to be done in the proof mode class instances.```
12. 30 Oct, 2017 9 commits
13. 28 Oct, 2017 3 commits
14. 27 Oct, 2017 1 commit
15. 25 Oct, 2017 6 commits
16. 19 Oct, 2017 1 commit