1. 29 Jan, 2019 1 commit
  2. 23 Jan, 2019 1 commit
  3. 28 Nov, 2018 1 commit
  4. 29 May, 2018 1 commit
  5. 28 May, 2018 1 commit
  6. 24 May, 2018 1 commit
    • Ralf Jung's avatar
      Remove the `default` notation for options · e585be6d
      Ralf Jung authored
      The notation was parsing-only and all it did was reorder the arguments for
      from_option.  This creates just a needless divergence between what is written
      and what is printed.  Also, removing it frees the name for maybe introducing a
      function or notation `default` with a type like `T -> option T -> T`.
      e585be6d
  7. 05 Apr, 2018 1 commit
  8. 31 Jan, 2018 1 commit
  9. 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
  10. 28 Oct, 2017 2 commits
  11. 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
  12. 08 Sep, 2017 1 commit
  13. 15 Mar, 2017 1 commit
  14. 09 Feb, 2017 1 commit
  15. 31 Jan, 2017 5 commits
  16. 09 Dec, 2016 2 commits
  17. 22 Nov, 2016 1 commit
  18. 16 Nov, 2016 1 commit
  19. 03 Oct, 2016 1 commit
  20. 20 Sep, 2016 2 commits
  21. 27 Jul, 2016 2 commits
  22. 14 Jun, 2016 1 commit
  23. 27 May, 2016 4 commits
  24. 21 Mar, 2016 1 commit
  25. 03 Mar, 2016 1 commit
  26. 20 Feb, 2016 1 commit
  27. 17 Feb, 2016 2 commits
  28. 13 Feb, 2016 1 commit