Skip to content
GitLab
Projects
Groups
Snippets
Help
Loading...
Help
Help
Support
Community forum
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Submit feedback
Contribute to GitLab
Sign in / Register
Toggle navigation
T
Tutorial POPL18
Project overview
Project overview
Details
Activity
Releases
Repository
Repository
Files
Commits
Branches
Tags
Contributors
Graph
Compare
Issues
0
Issues
0
List
Boards
Labels
Service Desk
Milestones
Merge Requests
0
Merge Requests
0
CI / CD
CI / CD
Pipelines
Jobs
Schedules
Operations
Operations
Environments
Analytics
Analytics
CI / CD
Repository
Value Stream
Wiki
Wiki
Members
Members
Collapse sidebar
Close sidebar
Activity
Graph
Create a new issue
Jobs
Commits
Issue Boards
Open sidebar
Iris
Tutorial POPL18
Commits
373c84a5
Commit
373c84a5
authored
May 12, 2019
by
Robbert Krebbers
Browse files
Options
Browse Files
Download
Email Patches
Plain Diff
Fix typo.
parent
8fda5e97
Pipeline
#16658
passed with stage
in 2 minutes and 46 seconds
Changes
2
Pipelines
1
Show whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
Showing
2 changed files
with
2 additions
and
2 deletions
+2
-2
exercises/ex_01_swap.v
exercises/ex_01_swap.v
+1
-1
solutions/ex_01_swap.v
solutions/ex_01_swap.v
+1
-1
No files found.
exercises/ex_01_swap.v
View file @
373c84a5
...
...
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ Lemma swap_spec x y v1 v2 :
Which is logically equivalent to [ P -∗ WP e {{ x, x = v ∗ Q }} ]
In practice, the "Texan triple" is not more difficult to prove, but usually
easier to use other proofs, because the post-condition does not have to
easier to use
in
other proofs, because the post-condition does not have to
syntactically match [Q]. Using this way of stating specifications, the
consequence and framing rule is implicitly applied on the post-condition.
...
...
solutions/ex_01_swap.v
View file @
373c84a5
...
...
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ Lemma swap_spec x y v1 v2 :
Which is logically equivalent to [ P -∗ WP e {{ x, x = v ∗ Q }} ]
In practice, the "Texan triple" is not more difficult to prove, but usually
easier to use other proofs, because the post-condition does not have to
easier to use
in
other proofs, because the post-condition does not have to
syntactically match [Q]. Using this way of stating specifications, the
consequence and framing rule is implicitly applied on the post-condition.
...
...
Write
Preview
Markdown
is supported
0%
Try again
or
attach a new file
Attach a file
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment