1. 29 Jan, 2019 40 commits
  2. 23 Jan, 2019 40 commits
  3. 28 Nov, 2018 40 commits
  4. 29 May, 2018 40 commits
  5. 28 May, 2018 40 commits
  6. 24 May, 2018 40 commits
    • Ralf Jung's avatar
      Remove the `default` notation for options · e585be6d
      Ralf Jung authored
      The notation was parsing-only and all it did was reorder the arguments for
      from_option.  This creates just a needless divergence between what is written
      and what is printed.  Also, removing it frees the name for maybe introducing a
      function or notation `default` with a type like `T -> option T -> T`.
      e585be6d
  7. 05 Apr, 2018 40 commits
  8. 31 Jan, 2018 40 commits
  9. 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
  10. 28 Oct, 2017 40 commits
  11. 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
  12. 08 Sep, 2017 40 commits
  13. 15 Mar, 2017 40 commits
  14. 09 Feb, 2017 40 commits
  15. 31 Jan, 2017 40 commits
  16. 09 Dec, 2016 40 commits
  17. 22 Nov, 2016 40 commits
  18. 16 Nov, 2016 40 commits
  19. 03 Oct, 2016 40 commits
  20. 20 Sep, 2016 40 commits
  21. 27 Jul, 2016 40 commits
  22. 14 Jun, 2016 40 commits
  23. 27 May, 2016 40 commits
  24. 21 Mar, 2016 40 commits
  25. 03 Mar, 2016 40 commits
  26. 20 Feb, 2016 40 commits
  27. 17 Feb, 2016 40 commits
  28. 13 Feb, 2016 40 commits