GitLab

Also, make our redefinition of done more robust under different
orders of Importing modules.

Since Coq 8.4 did not backtrack on eauto premises, we used to ensure
that hints like

  Hint Extern 0 (?x ≡{_}≡ ?y) => reflexivity.

were not used for goals involving evars by writing ?x ≡{_}≡ ?y instead
of _ ≡{_}≡ _.

This seems to be a legacy issue that no longer applies to Coq 8.5, so
I have removed these restrictions making these hints thus more powerful.

change statement of inv-open lemmas such that they do not force the invariant, and the 'inner step', to appear right next to each other

The rationale is that, just like the always lemmas about uPred and the frame-preserving updates for maps and iprdos, the versions with the ' are the "more specific" versions, hard-coding more assumptions in the shape of their conclusion.

Also do some minor clean up.

globalC -> globalF
New notation: iPropG, iFunctorG

Introduce the notion of "Frame Shift Assertions", and use to prove the rules about inv and auth at once for pvs and wp

Yeah, the name is horrible... but on the plus side, I think it should be possible to show that atomic triples and atomic shifts are also frame shift assertions, and then we get all this stuff for them for free.

Instead, I separate it into a total function and a predicate
describe whether the action is allowed or not. This has some
advantages:

* It is much easier to deal with total functions and predicates
  in Coq than with functions into option.
* Already existing functions do not need to be wrapped. Instead,
  when using a local update you end up with a sensible side
  condition as a Coq Prop.
* The definition of local updates (and all CMRA instances) no
  longer depend on option.

This way we avoid many one-off indexes and no longer need special cases for
index 0 in many definitions. For example, the definition of the distance
relation on option and excl has become much easier. Also, uPreds no longer need
to hold at index 0.

In order to make this change possible, we had to change the notions of
"contractive functions" and "chains" slightly.

Thanks to Aleš Bizjak and Amin Timany for suggesting this change and to help
with the proofs.

It is now slightly below implication. In order to do this, I had to change
the notation from P ={E1,E2}=> Q to P >{E1,E2}=> Q because the prefer ={n
is already used at level 70 for the distance of the metric.