 09 Apr, 2018 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored

 05 Apr, 2018 4 commits


Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored
This followed from discussions in https://gitlab.mpisws.org/FP/iriscoq/merge_requests/134

 20 Nov, 2017 2 commits


Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored
This one works for setoid rewriting under binders.

 09 Nov, 2017 1 commit


Johannes Kloos authored

 28 Oct, 2017 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored
This way, we will be compabile with Iris's heap_lang, which puts ;; at level 100.

 27 Oct, 2017 1 commit


JacquesHenri Jourdan authored

 21 Sep, 2017 1 commit


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

 17 Sep, 2017 1 commit


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 1 commit


Dan Frumin authored

 01 Apr, 2017 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored
This is needed to use coqstdpp in developments with typeintype as set_unfold will otherwise unify with any hyp, causing the set_solver tactic to break.

 15 Mar, 2017 2 commits


Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

 09 Mar, 2017 2 commits


Robbert Krebbers authored
To be consistent with Iris, see Iris commit 9ee62b3a.

Robbert Krebbers authored

 16 Feb, 2017 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored
To make it consistent with Forall_impl and map_Forall_impl. Also, put the premises in the same order as those lemmas.

 15 Feb, 2017 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored

 31 Jan, 2017 4 commits


Robbert Krebbers authored

Ralf Jung authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

Ralf Jung authored
This patch was created using find name *.v  xargs L 1 awk i inplace '{from = 0} /^From/{ from = 1; ever_from = 1} { if (from == 0 && seen == 0 && ever_from == 1) { print "Set Default Proof Using \"Type*\"."; seen = 1 } }1 ' and some minor manual editing

 29 Nov, 2016 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored

 23 Nov, 2016 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored

 21 Nov, 2016 2 commits


Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

 20 Nov, 2016 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored

 03 Oct, 2016 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored

 20 Sep, 2016 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored
This also solves a name clash with the extension order of CMRAs.

 08 Aug, 2016 1 commit


Ralf Jung authored
With Coq 8.6, you can no longer have intro patterns that give more names than the constructor has. Also, patterns with too few names are now interpreted as filling up with "?", rather than putting the unnamed parts into the goal again. Furthermore, it seems the behavior of "simplify_eq/=" changed, I guess hypotheses are considered in different order now. I managed to work around this, but it all seem kind of fragile. The next compilation failure is an "Anyomaly: ... Please report", so that's what I will do.

 02 Aug, 2016 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored

 27 Jul, 2016 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored

 22 Jul, 2016 5 commits


Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored
There was not really a need for the lattice type classes, so I removed these.

Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored
These just make things more complicated, it would be more useful to declare (efficient) decision procedures for each instance, so that we can properly predict which instance we will get.
