1. 05 Apr, 2018 3 commits
  2. 31 Jan, 2018 3 commits
  3. 14 Jan, 2018 1 commit
  4. 12 Nov, 2017 1 commit
    • Robbert Krebbers's avatar
      Make `fmap` left associative. · 12e701ca
      Robbert Krebbers authored
      This follows the associativity in Haskell. So, something like
      
        f <$> g <$> h
      
      Is now parsed as:
      
        (f <$> g) <$> h
      
      Since the functor is a generalized form of function application, this also now
      also corresponds with the associativity of function application, which is also
      left associative.
      12e701ca
  5. 09 Nov, 2017 1 commit
  6. 28 Oct, 2017 1 commit
  7. 24 Sep, 2017 1 commit
  8. 21 Sep, 2017 1 commit
  9. 17 Sep, 2017 1 commit
    • Robbert Krebbers's avatar
      Set Hint Mode for all classes in `base.v`. · 7d7c9871
      Robbert Krebbers authored
      This provides significant robustness against looping type class search.
      
      As a consequence, at many places throughout the library we had to add
      additional typing information to lemmas. This was to be expected, since
      most of the old lemmas were ambiguous. For example:
      
        Section fin_collection.
          Context `{FinCollection A C}.
      
          size_singleton (x : A) : size {[ x ]} = 1.
      
      In this case, the lemma does not tell us which `FinCollection` with
      elements `A` we are talking about. So, `{[ x ]}` could not only refer to
      the singleton operation of the `FinCollection A C` in the section, but
      also to any other `FinCollection` in the development. To make this lemma
      unambigious, it should be written as:
      
        Lemma size_singleton (x : A) : size ({[ x ]} : C) = 1.
      
      In similar spirit, lemmas like the one below were also ambiguous:
      
        Lemma lookup_alter_None {A} (f : A → A) m i j :
          alter f i m !! j = None  m !! j = None.
      
      It is not clear which finite map implementation we are talking about.
      To make this lemma unambigious, it should be written as:
      
        Lemma lookup_alter_None {A} (f : A → A) (m : M A) i j :
          alter f i m !! j = None  m !! j = None.
      
      That is, we have to specify the type of `m`.
      7d7c9871
  10. 08 Sep, 2017 1 commit
  11. 02 Sep, 2017 1 commit
  12. 25 May, 2017 2 commits
  13. 20 Mar, 2017 1 commit
  14. 17 Mar, 2017 1 commit
  15. 15 Mar, 2017 1 commit
  16. 01 Mar, 2017 1 commit
  17. 09 Feb, 2017 1 commit
  18. 31 Jan, 2017 10 commits
  19. 09 Dec, 2016 1 commit
  20. 06 Dec, 2016 1 commit
  21. 23 Nov, 2016 1 commit
  22. 13 Oct, 2016 1 commit
  23. 20 Sep, 2016 2 commits
  24. 24 Aug, 2016 1 commit
  25. 08 Aug, 2016 1 commit
    • Ralf Jung's avatar
      Better Coq 8.6 compatibility · 976c58f3
      Ralf Jung authored
      With Coq 8.6, you can no longer have intro patterns that give more names than
      the constructor has.  Also, patterns with too few names are now interpreted as
      filling up with "?", rather than putting the unnamed parts into the goal again.
      
      Furthermore, it seems the behavior of "simplify_eq/=" changed, I guess
      hypotheses are considered in different order now.  I managed to work around
      this, but it all seem kind of fragile.
      
      The next compilation failure is an "Anyomaly: ... Please report", so that's what I will do.
      976c58f3