 30 Nov, 2018 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored

 28 Nov, 2018 1 commit


Tej Chajed authored
Adding a hint without a database now triggers a deprecation warning in Coq master (https://github.com/coq/coq/pull/8987).

 10 Jun, 2018 1 commit


Ralf Jung authored
Works around Coq bug #7731

 27 Apr, 2018 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored

 05 Apr, 2018 5 commits


Robbert Krebbers authored

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

 23 Feb, 2018 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored

 22 Feb, 2018 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored

 19 Feb, 2018 2 commits


Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

 12 Feb, 2018 1 commit


Ralf Jung authored

 08 Feb, 2018 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored
`NoBackTrack P` requires `P` but will never backtrack on it once a result for `P` has been found.

 02 Feb, 2018 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored

 10 Jan, 2018 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored
As we have for all classes for binary relations.

 08 Dec, 2017 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored

 05 Dec, 2017 1 commit


Ralf Jung authored

 04 Dec, 2017 2 commits


JacquesHenri Jourdan authored

JacquesHenri Jourdan authored

 29 Nov, 2017 1 commit


David Swasey authored
Enable one to import both stdpp's base and ssrfun. Note that (f x.1) now parses as (f (fst x)) rather than (fst (f x)). (This change affects one proof in Iris.)

 21 Nov, 2017 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored
This gets rid of the old hack to have specific notations for pairs up to a fixed arity, and moreover allows to do fancy things like: ``` Record test := Test { t1 : nat; t2 : nat }. Definition foo (x : option test) : option nat := ''(Test a1 a2) ← x; Some a1. ```

 12 Nov, 2017 1 commit


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.

 09 Nov, 2017 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored

 01 Nov, 2017 2 commits


Johannes Kloos authored

Johannes Kloos authored
Infinity is described by having an injection from nat.

 31 Oct, 2017 1 commit


Johannes Kloos authored
The documentation for some typeclasses used the wrong names for these typeclasses.

 28 Oct, 2017 4 commits


Ralf Jung authored

Robbert Krebbers authored
This addresses some concerns in !5.

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

Ralf Jung authored

 27 Oct, 2017 1 commit


JacquesHenri Jourdan authored

 13 Oct, 2017 1 commit


Ralf Jung authored

 10 Oct, 2017 1 commit


Ralf Jung authored

 06 Oct, 2017 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored

 21 Sep, 2017 2 commits


Robbert Krebbers authored

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

 18 Sep, 2017 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored

 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`.
