1. 26 Jun, 2019 40 commits
  2. 25 Jun, 2019 40 commits
  3. 24 Jun, 2019 40 commits
  4. 17 Jun, 2019 40 commits
  5. 03 May, 2019 40 commits
  6. 30 Apr, 2019 40 commits
  7. 19 Apr, 2019 40 commits
  8. 16 Mar, 2019 40 commits
  9. 15 Mar, 2019 40 commits
  10. 01 Mar, 2019 40 commits
  11. 21 Feb, 2019 40 commits
  12. 29 Jan, 2019 40 commits
  13. 23 Jan, 2019 40 commits
  14. 28 Nov, 2018 40 commits
  15. 26 Nov, 2018 40 commits
  16. 10 Nov, 2018 40 commits
  17. 30 Jun, 2018 40 commits
  18. 20 Jun, 2018 40 commits
  19. 28 May, 2018 40 commits
  20. 05 Apr, 2018 40 commits
  21. 31 Jan, 2018 40 commits
  22. 14 Jan, 2018 40 commits
  23. 12 Nov, 2017 40 commits
    • 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
  24. 09 Nov, 2017 40 commits
  25. 28 Oct, 2017 40 commits
  26. 24 Sep, 2017 40 commits
  27. 21 Sep, 2017 40 commits
  28. 17 Sep, 2017 40 commits
    • 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
  29. 08 Sep, 2017 40 commits
  30. 02 Sep, 2017 40 commits