Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
  1. Feb 23, 2019
  2. Feb 22, 2019
  3. Feb 20, 2019
    • Robbert Krebbers's avatar
    • Robbert Krebbers's avatar
      `set_seq` is finite. · ef8fbfa1
      Robbert Krebbers authored
      ef8fbfa1
    • Robbert Krebbers's avatar
      Relation between `set_seq` and `seq`. · 46e116b9
      Robbert Krebbers authored
      46e116b9
    • Robbert Krebbers's avatar
      Support `set_seq` in `set_solver`. · 5658dc85
      Robbert Krebbers authored
      5658dc85
    • Robbert Krebbers's avatar
    • Robbert Krebbers's avatar
      Consistently use `set` and `map` names. · b7e31ce2
      Robbert Krebbers authored
      Get rid of using `Collection` and favor `set` everywhere. Also, prefer conversion
      functions that are called `X_to_Y`.
      
      The following sed script performs most of the renaming, with the exception of:
      
      - `set`, which has been renamed into `propset`. I couldn't do this rename
        using `sed` since it's too context sensitive.
      - There was a spurious rename of `Vec.of_list`, which I correctly manually.
      - Updating some section names and comments.
      
      ```
      sed '
      s/SimpleCollection/SemiSet/g;
      s/FinCollection/FinSet/g;
      s/CollectionMonad/MonadSet/g;
      s/Collection/Set\_/g;
      s/collection\_simple/set\_semi\_set/g;
      s/fin\_collection/fin\_set/g;
      s/collection\_monad\_simple/monad\_set\_semi\_set/g;
      s/collection\_equiv/set\_equiv/g;
      s/\bbset/boolset/g;
      s/mkBSet/BoolSet/g;
      s/mkSet/PropSet/g;
      s/set\_equivalence/set\_equiv\_equivalence/g;
      s/collection\_subseteq/set\_subseteq/g;
      s/collection\_disjoint/set\_disjoint/g;
      s/collection\_fold/set\_fold/g;
      s/collection\_map/set\_map/g;
      s/collection\_size/set\_size/g;
      s/collection\_filter/set\_filter/g;
      s/collection\_guard/set\_guard/g;
      s/collection\_choose/set\_choose/g;
      s/collection\_ind/set\_ind/g;
      s/collection\_wf/set\_wf/g;
      s/map\_to\_collection/map\_to\_set/g;
      s/map\_of\_collection/set\_to\_map/g;
      s/map\_of\_list/list\_to\_map/g;
      s/map\_of\_to_list/list\_to\_map\_to\_list/g;
      s/map\_to\_of\_list/map\_to\_list\_to\_map/g;
      s/\bof\_list/list\_to\_set/g;
      s/\bof\_option/option\_to\_set/g;
      s/elem\_of\_of\_list/elem\_of\_list\_to\_set/g;
      s/elem\_of\_of\_option/elem\_of\_option\_to\_set/g;
      s/collection\_not\_subset\_inv/set\_not\_subset\_inv/g;
      s/seq\_set/set\_seq/g;
      s/collections/sets/g;
      s/collection/set/g;
      ' -i $(find -name "*.v")
      ```
      b7e31ce2
  4. Jan 29, 2019
  5. Jan 23, 2019
  6. Jun 20, 2018
  7. Jun 18, 2018
  8. Apr 09, 2018
  9. Apr 05, 2018
  10. Mar 28, 2018
  11. Nov 20, 2017
  12. Nov 09, 2017
  13. Oct 28, 2017
  14. Oct 27, 2017
  15. Sep 21, 2017
  16. Sep 17, 2017
    • 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 :left_right_arrow: 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 :left_right_arrow: m !! j = None.
      
      That is, we have to specify the type of `m`.
      7d7c9871
  17. Sep 08, 2017
  18. Sep 06, 2017
  19. Apr 01, 2017
  20. Mar 15, 2017
  21. Mar 09, 2017
  22. Feb 16, 2017
  23. Feb 15, 2017
  24. Jan 31, 2017
  25. Nov 29, 2016
  26. Nov 23, 2016
Loading