1. 12 Nov, 2017 1 commit
    • Robbert Krebbers's avatar
      Make `fmap` left associative. · 12e701ca
      Robbert Krebbers authored
      This follows the associativity in Haskell. So, something like
      
        f <$> g <$> h
      
      Is now parsed as:
      
        (f <$> g) <$> h
      
      Since the functor is a generalized form of function application, this also now
      also corresponds with the associativity of function application, which is also
      left associative.
      12e701ca
  2. 11 Nov, 2017 1 commit
  3. 09 Nov, 2017 2 commits
  4. 31 Oct, 2017 3 commits
  5. 28 Oct, 2017 5 commits
  6. 27 Oct, 2017 3 commits
  7. 20 Oct, 2017 1 commit
  8. 16 Oct, 2017 1 commit
  9. 13 Oct, 2017 1 commit
  10. 10 Oct, 2017 1 commit
  11. 09 Oct, 2017 1 commit
  12. 06 Oct, 2017 2 commits
  13. 29 Sep, 2017 5 commits
  14. 24 Sep, 2017 2 commits
  15. 21 Sep, 2017 2 commits
  16. 20 Sep, 2017 1 commit
  17. 18 Sep, 2017 4 commits
  18. 17 Sep, 2017 1 commit
    • Robbert Krebbers's avatar
      Set Hint Mode for all classes in `base.v`. · 7d7c9871
      Robbert Krebbers authored
      This provides significant robustness against looping type class search.
      
      As a consequence, at many places throughout the library we had to add
      additional typing information to lemmas. This was to be expected, since
      most of the old lemmas were ambiguous. For example:
      
        Section fin_collection.
          Context `{FinCollection A C}.
      
          size_singleton (x : A) : size {[ x ]} = 1.
      
      In this case, the lemma does not tell us which `FinCollection` with
      elements `A` we are talking about. So, `{[ x ]}` could not only refer to
      the singleton operation of the `FinCollection A C` in the section, but
      also to any other `FinCollection` in the development. To make this lemma
      unambigious, it should be written as:
      
        Lemma size_singleton (x : A) : size ({[ x ]} : C) = 1.
      
      In similar spirit, lemmas like the one below were also ambiguous:
      
        Lemma lookup_alter_None {A} (f : A → A) m i j :
          alter f i m !! j = None  m !! j = None.
      
      It is not clear which finite map implementation we are talking about.
      To make this lemma unambigious, it should be written as:
      
        Lemma lookup_alter_None {A} (f : A → A) (m : M A) i j :
          alter f i m !! j = None  m !! j = None.
      
      That is, we have to specify the type of `m`.
      7d7c9871
  19. 08 Sep, 2017 1 commit
  20. 06 Sep, 2017 2 commits