1. 31 Oct, 2018 1 commit
  2. 29 Oct, 2018 2 commits
    • Jacques-Henri Jourdan's avatar
      wp_pures. · 2950fca6
      Jacques-Henri Jourdan authored
    • Jacques-Henri Jourdan's avatar
      A specific constructor for injecting values in expressions · 9646293e
      Jacques-Henri Jourdan authored
      We add a specific constructor to the type of expressions for injecting
      values in expressions.
      The advantage are :
      - Values can be assumed to be always closed when performing
        substitutions (even though they could contain free variables, but it
        turns out it does not cause any problem in the proofs in
        practice). This means that we no longer need the `Closed` typeclass
        and everything that comes with it (all the reflection-based machinery
        contained in tactics.v is no longer necessary). I have not measured
        anything, but I guess this would have a significant performance
      - There is only one constructor for values. As a result, the AsVal and
        IntoVal typeclasses are no longer necessary: an expression which is
        a value will always unify with `Val _`, and therefore lemmas can be
        stated using this constructor.
      Of course, this means that there are two ways of writing such a thing
      as "The pair of integers 1 and 2": Either by using the value
      constructor applied to the pair represented as a value, or by using
      the expression pair constructor. So we add reduction rules that
      transform reduced pair, injection and closure expressions into values.
      At first, this seems weird, because of the redundancy. But in fact,
      this has some meaning, since the machine migth actually be doing
      something to e.g., allocate the pair or the closure.
      These additional steps of computation show up in the proofs, and some
      additional wp_* tactics need to be called.
  3. 04 Oct, 2018 1 commit
  4. 18 Jun, 2018 1 commit
  5. 02 May, 2018 1 commit
  6. 25 Apr, 2018 1 commit
  7. 04 Dec, 2017 1 commit
  8. 25 Oct, 2017 1 commit
    • Robbert Krebbers's avatar
      Make `iDestruct ... as (cpat) "..."` work on '⌜φ⌝ ∧ P` and `⌜φ⌝ ∗ P`. · c5045145
      Robbert Krebbers authored
      The advantage is that we can directly use a Coq introduction pattern
      `cpat` to perform actions to the pure assertion. Before, this had
      to be done in several steps:
        iDestruct ... as "[Htmp ...]"; iDestruct "Htmp" as %cpat.
      That is, one had to introduce a temporary name.
      I expect this to be quite useful in various developments as many of
      e.g. our invariants are written as:
        ∃ x1 .. x2, ⌜ pure stuff ⌝ ∗ spacial stuff.
  9. 25 Sep, 2017 1 commit
  10. 09 Jan, 2017 1 commit
  11. 06 Jan, 2017 1 commit
  12. 05 Jan, 2017 1 commit
  13. 03 Jan, 2017 2 commits
  14. 09 Dec, 2016 3 commits
  15. 08 Dec, 2016 1 commit
  16. 07 Dec, 2016 1 commit
  17. 06 Dec, 2016 2 commits
  18. 22 Nov, 2016 1 commit
  19. 09 Nov, 2016 1 commit
  20. 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.
  21. 01 Nov, 2016 3 commits
  22. 27 Oct, 2016 3 commits
  23. 25 Oct, 2016 2 commits
    • Robbert Krebbers's avatar
      Generalize update tactics into iMod and iModIntro for modalities. · fc30ca08
      Robbert Krebbers authored
      There are now two proof mode tactics for dealing with modalities:
      - `iModIntro` : introduction of a modality
      - `iMod pm_trm as (x1 ... xn) "ipat"` : eliminate a modality
      The behavior of these tactics can be controlled by instances of the `IntroModal`
      and `ElimModal` type class. We have declared instances for later, except 0,
      basic updates and fancy updates. The tactic `iMod` is flexible enough that it
      can also eliminate an updates around a weakest pre, and so forth.
      The corresponding introduction patterns of these tactics are `!>` and `>`.
      These tactics replace the tactics `iUpdIntro`, `iUpd` and `iTimeless`.
      Source of backwards incompatability: the introduction pattern `!>` is used for
      introduction of arbitrary modalities. It used to introduce laters by stripping
      of a later of each hypotheses.
    • Robbert Krebbers's avatar
      Rename rvs -> bupd (basic update), pvs -> fupd (fancy update). · 1b85d654
      Robbert Krebbers authored
      And also rename the corresponding proof mode tactics.
  24. 05 Oct, 2016 1 commit
  25. 25 Aug, 2016 3 commits
  26. 09 Aug, 2016 1 commit
  27. 08 Aug, 2016 1 commit
  28. 05 Aug, 2016 1 commit