 09 May, 2017 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored

 27 Apr, 2017 2 commits


Robbert Krebbers authored
Now they can also be used to clear/frame the whole pure/persistent/spatial context.

Robbert Krebbers authored

 26 Apr, 2017 1 commit


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.

 19 Apr, 2017 3 commits
 13 Apr, 2017 6 commits


Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored
This enables things like `iSpecialize ("H2" with "H1") in the below: "H1" : P □ "H2" : □ P ∗ Q ∗ R

Robbert Krebbers authored

 12 Apr, 2017 3 commits
 11 Apr, 2017 4 commits


JacquesHenri Jourdan authored
A notion of CMRA morphims based on the compatibility with validity, core and composition. See merge request !56

Ralf Jung authored

Ralf Jung authored

Ralf Jung authored

 07 Apr, 2017 3 commits


Robbert Krebbers authored
For example, when having `H : ▷ P → Q` and `HP : P`, we can now do `iSpecialize ("H" with "HP")`. This is achieved by putting a `FromAssumption` premise in the base instance for `IntoWand`.

Ralf Jung authored

JacquesHenri Jourdan authored

 05 Apr, 2017 1 commit


JacquesHenri Jourdan authored

 04 Apr, 2017 1 commit


JacquesHenri Jourdan authored

 31 Mar, 2017 2 commits
 30 Mar, 2017 1 commit

 28 Mar, 2017 2 commits


Robbert Krebbers authored
This fixes the bug that when having: iDestruct (foo with "H") as "{H1 H2} #[H1 H2]" The hypothesis H would not be kept.

Robbert Krebbers authored

 27 Mar, 2017 1 commit


Robbert Krebbers authored

 24 Mar, 2017 9 commits


Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored
This commit fixes the issues that refolding of big operators did not work nicely in the proof mode, e.g., given: Goal forall M (P : nat → uPred M) l, ([∗ list] x ∈ 10 :: l, P x) ∗ True. Proof. iIntros (M P l) "[H1 H2]". We got: "H1" : P 10 "H2" : (fix big_opL (M0 : ofeT) (o : M0 → M0 → M0) (H : Monoid o) (A : Type) (f : nat → A → M0) (xs : list A) {struct xs} : M0 := match xs with  [] => monoid_unit  x :: xs0 => o (f 0 x) (big_opL M0 o H A (λ n : nat, f (S n)) xs0) end) (uPredC M) uPred_sep uPred.uPred_sep_monoid nat (λ _ x : nat, P x) l ∗ True The problem here is that proof mode looked for an instance of `IntoAnd` for `[∗ list] x ∈ 10 :: l, P x` and then applies the instance for separating conjunction without folding back the fixpoint. This problem is not specific to the Iris proof mode, but more of a general problem of Coq's `apply`, for example: Goal forall x l, Forall (fun _ => True) (map S (x :: l)). Proof. intros x l. constructor. Gives: Forall (λ _ : nat, True) ((fix map (l0 : list nat) : list nat := match l0 with  [] => []  a :: t => S a :: map t end) l) This commit fixes this issue by making the big operators type class opaque and instead handle them solely via corresponding type classes instances for the proof mode tactics. Furthermore, note that we already had instances for persistence and timelessness. Those were really needed; computation did not help to establish persistence when the list in question was not a ground term. In fact, the sitation was worse, to establish persistence of `[∗ list] x ∈ 10 :: l, P x` it could either use the persistence instance of big ops directly, or use the persistency instance for `∗` first. Worst case, this can lead to an exponential blow up because of back tracking.

Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored

Robbert Krebbers authored
Instead, I have introduced a type class `Monoid` that is used by the big operators: Class Monoid {M : ofeT} (o : M → M → M) := { monoid_unit : M; monoid_ne : NonExpansive2 o; monoid_assoc : Assoc (≡) o; monoid_comm : Comm (≡) o; monoid_left_id : LeftId (≡) monoid_unit o; monoid_right_id : RightId (≡) monoid_unit o; }. Note that the operation is an argument because we want to have multiple monoids over the same type (for example, on `uPred`s we have monoids for `∗`, `∧`, and `∨`). However, we do bundle the unit because:  If we would not, the unit would appear explicitly in an implicit argument of the big operators, which confuses rewrite. By bundling the unit in the `Monoid` class it is hidden, and hence rewrite won't even see it.  The unit is unique. We could in principle have big ops over setoids instead of OFEs. However, since we do not have a canonical structure for bundled setoids, I did not go that way.

Robbert Krebbers authored
Big ops over list with a cons reduce, hence these just follow immediately from conversion.

Robbert Krebbers authored
