 11 Feb, 2016 3 commits


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 27 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

Robbert Krebbers authored
This way we avoid many oneoff indexes and no longer need special cases for index 0 in many definitions. For example, the definition of the distance relation on option and excl has become much easier. Also, uPreds no longer need to hold at index 0. In order to make this change possible, we had to change the notions of "contractive functions" and "chains" slightly. Thanks to Aleš Bizjak and Amin Timany for suggesting this change and to help with the proofs.

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

Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored
Now notations are pretty printed in the same way as they are parsed. Before "let x := e1 in e2" was notation for "(fun x => e2) e1", resulting in overlapping notations for the same thing.

Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored
It is now slightly below implication. In order to do this, I had to change the notation from P ={E1,E2}=> Q to P >{E1,E2}=> Q because the prefer ={n is already used at level 70 for the distance of the metric.

 09 Feb, 2016 10 commits


Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored
We can use a named representation because we only substitute closed values. This idea is borrowed from Pierce's Software Foundations. The named representation has the following advantages: * Programs are much better readable than those using De Bruijn indexes. * Substitutions on closed terms (where all variables are explicit strings) can be performed by a mere simpl instead of Autosubst's asimpl. The performance of simpl seems better than asimpl. * Syntactic sugar refolds better.

Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored
