1. 29 Jan, 2019 1 commit
  2. 28 Nov, 2018 1 commit
  3. 20 Jun, 2018 1 commit
  4. 11 Apr, 2018 1 commit
  5. 09 Apr, 2018 1 commit
  6. 05 Apr, 2018 3 commits
  7. 21 Nov, 2017 1 commit
    • Robbert Krebbers's avatar
      Pattern matching notation for monadic binds. · dcd59f13
      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.
      ```
      dcd59f13
  8. 21 Sep, 2017 1 commit
  9. 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
  10. 08 Sep, 2017 1 commit
  11. 15 Mar, 2017 1 commit
  12. 09 Mar, 2017 1 commit
  13. 31 Jan, 2017 4 commits
  14. 06 Dec, 2016 1 commit
  15. 05 Dec, 2016 1 commit
    • Robbert Krebbers's avatar
      New definition of contractive. · 3caefaaa
      Robbert Krebbers authored
      Using this new definition we can express being contractive using a
      Proper. This has the following advantages:
      
      - It makes it easier to state that a function with multiple arguments
        is contractive (in all or some arguments).
      - A solve_contractive tactic can be implemented by extending the
        solve_proper tactic.
      3caefaaa
  16. 24 Nov, 2016 1 commit
  17. 22 Nov, 2016 1 commit
  18. 21 Nov, 2016 2 commits
  19. 19 Nov, 2016 1 commit
  20. 17 Nov, 2016 2 commits
  21. 15 Nov, 2016 1 commit