 29 Sep, 2017 5 commits


Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored
This fixes the issue of Hai in !6.

Hai Dang authored

Hai Dang authored

Hai Dang authored

 28 Sep, 2017 1 commit


Ralf Jung authored

 27 Sep, 2017 1 commit


Ralf Jung authored

 26 Sep, 2017 1 commit


Ralf Jung authored

 24 Sep, 2017 2 commits


Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

 21 Sep, 2017 5 commits


Robbert Krebbers authored

Ralf Jung authored

Robbert Krebbers authored
This allows for more control over `Hint Mode`.

Ralf Jung authored

Ralf Jung authored

 20 Sep, 2017 6 commits
 18 Sep, 2017 9 commits


Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored
This instance leads to exponential failing searches.

Robbert Krebbers authored
These trees are useful to show that other types are countable.

Ralf Jung authored

Ralf Jung authored

Ralf Jung authored

Ralf Jung authored

Ralf Jung authored

 17 Sep, 2017 2 commits


Robbert Krebbers authored

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`.

 08 Sep, 2017 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored
See also Coq bug #5712.

 06 Sep, 2017 4 commits


Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert authored
Some lemmas about `difference` and `delete` See merge request !5

Dan Frumin authored

 02 Sep, 2017 3 commits


Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored
