- Dec 10, 2018
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
- Nov 29, 2017
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
- Nov 14, 2017
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
- Oct 31, 2017
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
- Oct 30, 2017
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
- Oct 25, 2017
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
Rename `UCMRA` → `Ucmra` Rename `CMRA` → `Cmra` Rename `OFE` → `Ofe` (`Ofe` was already used partially, but many occurences were missing) Rename `STS` → `Sts` Rename `DRA` → `Dra`
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
- Sep 17, 2017
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
For obsolete reasons, that no longer seem to apply, we used ∅ as the unit.
-
- Aug 17, 2017
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
- Jun 08, 2017
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
- Apr 07, 2017
-
-
Jacques-Henri Jourdan authored
-
- Mar 24, 2017
-
-
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.
-
- Feb 09, 2017
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
- Jan 27, 2017
-
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
- Jan 05, 2017
-
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
- Jan 03, 2017
-
-
Ralf Jung authored
This patch was created using find -name *.v | xargs -L 1 awk -i inplace '{from = 0} /^From/{ from = 1; ever_from = 1} { if (from == 0 && seen == 0 && ever_from == 1) { print "Set Default Proof Using \"Type*\"."; seen = 1 } }1 ' and some minor manual editing
-
- Dec 09, 2016
- Nov 29, 2016
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
The rewrite auth_validN_eq was not performed in the hypothesis. It used to work in 8.5 because of magic.
-
- Nov 28, 2016
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
Also, use explicit unfolding lemmas for auth_valid and auth_validN. The `Arguments valid _ _ !_ /` hack did not really work when one has to deal with the valid instance of the cmra, which underneath also includes a `cmra_valid`. Declaring a similar Arguments for `cmra_valid` is a bad idea, it will also end up unfold stuff for the exclusive and option CMRA.
-
Ralf Jung authored
Proof was done by Hai & me
-
- Nov 25, 2016
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
- Nov 22, 2016
-
-
Ralf Jung authored
Use COFEs only for the recursive domain equation solver
-
- Oct 25, 2016
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
- Oct 06, 2016
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
- Oct 05, 2016
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
- Oct 03, 2016
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
- Sep 28, 2016
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
This allows us to factor out properties about connectives that commute with the big operators.
-
- Sep 20, 2016
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
- Sep 09, 2016
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
- Sep 01, 2016
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
- Aug 20, 2016
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
This requirement was useful in Iris 2.0: in order to ensure that ownership of the physical state was timeless, we required the ghost CMRA to have a timeless unit. To avoid having additional type class parameters, or having to extend the algebraic hierarchy, we required the units of any CMRA to be timeless. In Iris 3.0, this issue no longer applies: ownership of the physical state is ghost ownership in the global CMRA, whose unit is always timeless. Thanks to Jeehoon Kang for spotting this unnecessary requirement.
-
- Aug 14, 2016
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
This is more consistent with the definition of the extension order, which is also defined in terms of an existential.
-