1. 06 Jun, 2018 2 commits
  2. 12 Mar, 2018 1 commit
  3. 13 Nov, 2017 1 commit
    • Robbert Krebbers's avatar
      Improved treatment of anonymous hypotheses in the proof mode. · bb3584e7
      Robbert Krebbers authored
      The proof mode now explicitly keeps track of anonymous hypotheses (i.e.
      hypotheses that are introduced by the introduction pattern `?`). Consider:
      
        Lemma foo {M} (P Q R : uPred M) : P -∗ (Q ∗ R) -∗ Q ∗ P.
        Proof. iIntros "? [H ?]". iFrame "H". iFrame. Qed.
      
      After the `iIntros`, the goal will be:
      
        _ : P
        "H" : Q
        _ : R
        --------------------------------------∗
        Q ∗ P
      
      Anonymous hypotheses are displayed in a special way (`_ : P`). An important
      property of the new anonymous hypotheses is that it is no longer possible to
      refer to them by name, whereas before, anonymous hypotheses were given some
      arbitrary fresh name (typically prefixed by `~`).
      
      Note tactics can still operate on these anonymous hypotheses. For example, both
      `iFrame` and `iAssumption`, as well as the symbolic execution tactics, will
      use them. The only thing that is not possible is to refer to them yourself,
      for example, in an introduction, specialization or selection pattern.
      
      Advantages of the new approach:
      
      - Proofs become more robust as one cannot accidentally refer to anonymous
        hypotheses by their fresh name.
      - Fresh name generation becomes considerably easier. Since anonymous hypotheses
        are internally represented by natural numbers (of type `N`), we can just fold
        over the hypotheses and take the max plus one. This thus solve issue #101.
      bb3584e7
  4. 11 Nov, 2017 1 commit
  5. 01 Nov, 2017 1 commit
    • Robbert Krebbers's avatar
      Hide the proof mode entailment behind a definition. · 8574d1ea
      Robbert Krebbers authored
      This solves issue #100: the proof mode notation is sometimes not printed. As
      Ralf discovered, the problem is that there are two overlapping notations:
      
      ```coq
      Notation "P ⊢ Q" := (uPred_entails P Q).
      ```
      
      And the "proof mode" notation:
      
      ```
      Notation "Γ '--------------------------------------' □ Δ '--------------------------------------' ∗ Q" :=
        (of_envs (Envs Γ Δ) ⊢ Q%I).
      ```
      
      These two notations overlap, so, when having a "proof mode" goal of the shape
      `of_envs (Envs Γ Δ) ⊢ Q%I`, how do we know which notation is Coq going to pick
      for pretty printing this goal? As we have seen, this choice depends on the
      import order (since both notations appear in different files), and as such, Coq
      sometimes (unintendedly) uses the first notation instead of the latter.
      
      The idea of this commit is to wrap `of_envs (Envs Γ Δ) ⊢ Q%I` into a definition
      so that there is no ambiguity for the pretty printer anymore.
      8574d1ea
  6. 30 Oct, 2017 1 commit
  7. 24 Aug, 2017 1 commit
  8. 22 Aug, 2017 1 commit
  9. 26 Apr, 2017 1 commit
    • Robbert Krebbers's avatar
      Fix bug #85 in another way. · 293fb6c7
      Robbert Krebbers authored
      After discussing this with Ralf, again, it turned out that using a bar
      instead of a turnstyle would be better. When formalizing type systems, one
      often wants to use a turnstyle in other notations (the typing judgment),
      so having the turnstyle in the proofmode notation is confusing.
      293fb6c7
  10. 30 Mar, 2017 1 commit
  11. 06 Feb, 2017 1 commit
  12. 11 Jan, 2017 1 commit
    • Ralf Jung's avatar
      Mark notation as "only printing" · b00ace04
      Ralf Jung authored
      Unfortunately, we currently have to keep the unicode-space hack in some places because Coq still complains about the notation otherwise
      b00ace04
  13. 05 Jan, 2017 1 commit
  14. 03 Jan, 2017 1 commit
  15. 09 Dec, 2016 1 commit
  16. 03 Nov, 2016 1 commit
    • Robbert Krebbers's avatar
      Use symbol ∗ for separating conjunction. · cc31476d
      Robbert Krebbers authored
      The old choice for ★ was a arbitrary: the precedence of the ASCII asterisk *
      was fixed at a wrong level in Coq, so we had to pick another symbol. The ★ was
      a random choice from a unicode chart.
      
      The new symbol ∗ (as proposed by David Swasey) corresponds better to
      conventional practise and matches the symbol we use on paper.
      cc31476d
  17. 19 Apr, 2016 2 commits
  18. 15 Apr, 2016 2 commits
  19. 11 Apr, 2016 1 commit