1. 07 Mar, 2018 1 commit
  2. 03 Mar, 2018 1 commit
  3. 28 Feb, 2018 1 commit
  4. 21 Feb, 2018 2 commits
  5. 19 Feb, 2018 1 commit
  6. 16 Feb, 2018 1 commit
  7. 15 Feb, 2018 1 commit
  8. 13 Jan, 2018 4 commits
  9. 22 Dec, 2017 6 commits
  10. 14 Dec, 2017 1 commit
  11. 04 Dec, 2017 1 commit
  12. 27 Nov, 2017 1 commit
  13. 14 Nov, 2017 1 commit
  14. 31 Oct, 2017 2 commits
  15. 30 Oct, 2017 2 commits
  16. 27 Oct, 2017 1 commit
  17. 19 Oct, 2017 3 commits
  18. 09 Oct, 2017 1 commit
  19. 25 Sep, 2017 2 commits
  20. 18 Sep, 2017 1 commit
  21. 22 Aug, 2017 1 commit
  22. 12 Jun, 2017 1 commit
  23. 08 Jun, 2017 1 commit
  24. 24 Mar, 2017 1 commit
    • Robbert Krebbers's avatar
      Generic big operators that are no longer tied to CMRAs. · 6fbff46e
      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.
      6fbff46e
  25. 18 Feb, 2017 1 commit
  26. 07 Feb, 2017 1 commit