- Oct 10, 2017
-
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
- Oct 09, 2017
- Oct 07, 2017
-
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
- Oct 06, 2017
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
- Sep 29, 2017
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
This fixes the issue of Hai in !6.
-
Hai Dang authored
-
Hai Dang authored
-
Hai Dang authored
-
- Sep 28, 2017
-
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
- Sep 27, 2017
-
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
- Sep 26, 2017
-
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
- Sep 24, 2017
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
- Sep 21, 2017
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
This allows for more control over `Hint Mode`.
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
- Sep 20, 2017
- Sep 18, 2017
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
This instance leads to exponential failing searches.
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
These trees are useful to show that other types are countable.
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
- Sep 17, 2017
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
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`.
-
- Sep 08, 2017
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
See also Coq bug #5712.
-
- Sep 06, 2017
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-