stdpp merge requestshttps://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests2020-05-12T17:46:34Zhttps://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/136Rotate everything2020-05-12T17:46:34ZMichael SammlerRotate everythingThis MR adds rotate_nat_add, rotate_nat_sub, rotate and rotate_take functions, which allow dealing with wraparound of lists. I don't know where these functions should go so I created a new file for them. But I can also move them somewher...This MR adds rotate_nat_add, rotate_nat_sub, rotate and rotate_take functions, which allow dealing with wraparound of lists. I don't know where these functions should go so I created a new file for them. But I can also move them somewhere else.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/135Fix typo in CHANGELOG2020-04-01T06:39:08ZTej Chajedtchajed@gmail.comFix typo in CHANGELOGRename performed in !131 was on `drop_insert`, not `drop_length`Rename performed in !131 was on `drop_insert`, not `drop_length`https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/134Lemmas for `list_find` in combination with `app` and `insert`.2020-05-12T17:00:22ZRobbert KrebbersLemmas for `list_find` in combination with `app` and `insert`.This MR proposes an alternative to the lemmas for `list_find` by @msammler in #131 (but that he removed later).
All lemmas are stated using a bi-implication, and they are strong enough to prove @msammler's original lemmas:
```coq
Lemma...This MR proposes an alternative to the lemmas for `list_find` by @msammler in #131 (but that he removed later).
All lemmas are stated using a bi-implication, and they are strong enough to prove @msammler's original lemmas:
```coq
Lemma list_find_insert_Some_ne1 l i i' x x':
list_find P l = Some (i', x') → ¬ P x → i ≠ i' →
list_find P (<[i:=x]> l) = Some (i', x').
Proof.
rewrite list_find_insert_Some, !list_find_Some.
destruct (decide (i < i')); naive_solver eauto with lia.
Qed.
Lemma list_find_insert_Some_ne_change2 l i i' x x':
list_find P (<[i:=x]>l) = Some (i', x') → ¬ P x → l !! i = Some x' → i < i' →
list_find P l = Some (i, x').
Proof. rewrite list_find_insert_Some. repeat setoid_rewrite list_find_Some. naive_solver eauto with lia. Qed.
Lemma list_find_insert_Some_ne_same2 l i i' x x' x'':
list_find P (<[i:=x]>l) = Some (i', x') →
¬ P x → l !! i = Some x'' → (i < i' → ¬ P x'') →
list_find P l = Some (i', x').
Proof. rewrite list_find_insert_Some. repeat setoid_rewrite list_find_Some. naive_solver. Qed.
Lemma list_find_insert_Some_ne2 l i i' x x' x'':
list_find P (<[i:=x]>l) = Some (i', x') → ¬ P x → l !! i = Some x'' → (x'' = x' ∨ ¬ P x'') →
∃ i'', list_find P l = Some (i'', x').
Proof. rewrite list_find_insert_Some. repeat setoid_rewrite list_find_Some. naive_solver eauto with lia. Qed.
```
I very much dislike the statement of `list_find_insert_Some`, but I cannot come up with anything better that is true.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/133Remove trailing whitespace2020-03-31T08:07:03ZMichael SammlerRemove trailing whitespaceThis was done using `sed --in-place 's/[[:space:]]\+$//' theories/*.v`.This was done using `sed --in-place 's/[[:space:]]\+$//' theories/*.v`.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/132Replace explicit use of Inj instances by inj2020-03-31T13:36:25ZPaolo G. GiarrussoReplace explicit use of Inj instances by injThis was inconsistent and not explained before. And I noticed when talking with Herbelin about view inference.This was inconsistent and not explained before. And I noticed when talking with Herbelin about view inference.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/131random collection of lemmas2020-04-08T07:26:43ZMichael Sammlerrandom collection of lemmasThese are some lemmas which I need in my development. @robbertkrebbers and I talked about some of them today. I will make another MR with the `rotate` function. Let me know what you think and which lemmas seem useful. Also better proofs ...These are some lemmas which I need in my development. @robbertkrebbers and I talked about some of them today. I will make another MR with the `rotate` function. Let me know what you think and which lemmas seem useful. Also better proofs are always appreciated.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/129Fix `Export` order for `length`. Remove `length` hack in strings.2020-04-11T10:35:00ZRobbert KrebbersFix `Export` order for `length`. Remove `length` hack in strings.The notation in `strings` was a hack to shadow the `length` function on strings with those on lists.
@msammler and I figured out how to change the imports to fix this problem without the hack. Basically, `stdpp.base` exports `Coq.Stri...The notation in `strings` was a hack to shadow the `length` function on strings with those on lists.
@msammler and I figured out how to change the imports to fix this problem without the hack. Basically, `stdpp.base` exports `Coq.Strings` and `Coq.List` in the right order, so the shadowing is done right. As a consequence `Coq.Strings` should never be exported by hand.
This approach seems to work among all supported Coq versions.
We also added a test.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/128add sed script for 1.3.02020-04-02T09:31:03ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.orgadd sed script for 1.3.0Original sed script by @tchajed. I added `s/\bdom_map_filter\b/dom_map_filter_subseteq/g` and `s/\bseqZ_fmap\b/fmap_add_seqZ/g`.Original sed script by @tchajed. I added `s/\bdom_map_filter\b/dom_map_filter_subseteq/g` and `s/\bseqZ_fmap\b/fmap_add_seqZ/g`.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/127Update CHANGELOG for 1.3 release.2020-03-18T09:20:57ZRobbert KrebbersUpdate CHANGELOG for 1.3 release.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/126Make lemmas for `seq` and `seqZ` consistent.2020-03-18T15:51:22ZRobbert KrebbersMake lemmas for `seq` and `seqZ` consistent.This closes issue #57This closes issue #57https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/125Lookup total lemmas2020-03-17T20:45:23ZRobbert KrebbersLookup total lemmasThis closes issue #50 and is a more complete alternative to !109.
This MR includes all lemmas that I think make sense. See also the discussion there.This closes issue #50 and is a more complete alternative to !109.
This MR includes all lemmas that I think make sense. See also the discussion there.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/124Remove copyright headers, update LICENCE file.2020-03-13T12:39:10ZRobbert KrebbersRemove copyright headers, update LICENCE file.This follows https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/merge_requests/387.
This closes issue #54.This follows https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/merge_requests/387.
This closes issue #54.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/123Change mode of `TCEq`.2023-10-06T13:45:12ZRobbert KrebbersChange mode of `TCEq`.See https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/merge_requests/391See https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/merge_requests/391https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/122Avoid using Hint Resolve with a term2020-03-10T13:56:24ZTej Chajedtchajed@gmail.comAvoid using Hint Resolve with a termThis feature is now deprecated in Coq master (see
https://github.com/coq/coq/pull/7791).
Instead of passing a partially-applied lemma directly to Hint Resolve,
first create a definition and then make that reference a hint.This feature is now deprecated in Coq master (see
https://github.com/coq/coq/pull/7791).
Instead of passing a partially-applied lemma directly to Hint Resolve,
first create a definition and then make that reference a hint.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/121Set `Hint Mode` for logical `TCX` type classes2020-03-10T15:33:35ZRobbert KrebbersSet `Hint Mode` for logical `TCX` type classesThis closes issue #55.
Note that both arguments of `TCEq` are outputs, which makes `TCEq` symmetric. We could make one the input argument and the other the output argument, but this requires some change to Iris without obvious benefits....This closes issue #55.
Note that both arguments of `TCEq` are outputs, which makes `TCEq` symmetric. We could make one the input argument and the other the output argument, but this requires some change to Iris without obvious benefits.
/cc @msammler @jannohttps://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/120Rename `fin_of_nat` → `nat_to_fin` to follow the conventions.2020-03-05T22:13:06ZRobbert KrebbersRename `fin_of_nat` → `nat_to_fin` to follow the conventions.Rename `fin_of_nat` into `nat_to_fin`, `fin_to_of_nat` into `fin_to_nat_to_fin`, and `fin_of_to_nat` into `nat_to_fin_to_nat`, to follow the conventions in Iris, and also the recent rename for the similar `vec` functions.Rename `fin_of_nat` into `nat_to_fin`, `fin_to_of_nat` into `fin_to_nat_to_fin`, and `fin_of_to_nat` into `nat_to_fin_to_nat`, to follow the conventions in Iris, and also the recent rename for the similar `vec` functions.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/117Add destruct_or tactics to (possibly repeatedly) split disjunctions in an ass...2020-02-28T12:15:58ZArmaël GuéneauAdd destruct_or tactics to (possibly repeatedly) split disjunctions in an assumptionFollowing `split_and`, the new tactics are `split_or H`, `split_or? H` and `split_or! H`. The name `H` is reused for the assumptions that are produced by destructing the disjunction (no fresh name is introduced).
I was pondering wheth...Following `split_and`, the new tactics are `split_or H`, `split_or? H` and `split_or! H`. The name `H` is reused for the assumptions that are produced by destructing the disjunction (no fresh name is introduced).
I was pondering whether the tactic should be `split_or H` or `split_or in H`. The second one follows the usual pattern of `in`+assumption, but at the same time there is not going to be a `split_or` tactic that works on the goal, so...https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/116Add `set_solver` support for `dom`2020-02-24T14:12:11ZRobbert KrebbersAdd `set_solver` support for `dom`This MR closes issue #53.
@armael can you review/check if this sufficient for what you had in mind?This MR closes issue #53.
@armael can you review/check if this sufficient for what you had in mind?https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/115Countable instance for vec, and rename `vec_to_list_of_list` into `vec_to_lis...2020-02-24T16:11:55ZRobbert KrebbersCountable instance for vec, and rename `vec_to_list_of_list` into `vec_to_list_to_vec`This is an alternative to !114, which does not involve defining a partial function from lists to vectors, but makes use of the already existing function `list_to_vec`.
Also I renamed `vec_to_list_of_list` into `vec_to_list_to_vec`. The ...This is an alternative to !114, which does not involve defining a partial function from lists to vectors, but makes use of the already existing function `list_to_vec`.
Also I renamed `vec_to_list_of_list` into `vec_to_list_to_vec`. The former appears to be a leftover of the big `X_of_Y` into `Y_to_X` rename.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/stdpp/-/merge_requests/113Rename `cogpick` to `coGpick` (oops).2020-02-23T14:44:32ZDavid SwaseyRename `cogpick` to `coGpick` (oops).We renamed `cogset` to `coGset`, but my search and replace missed `cogpick`.
Pinging @robbertkrebbers.We renamed `cogset` to `coGset`, but my search and replace missed `cogpick`.
Pinging @robbertkrebbers.