- Feb 10, 2016
-
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
Now notations are pretty printed in the same way as they are parsed. Before "let x := e1 in e2" was notation for "(fun x => e2) e1", resulting in overlapping notations for the same thing.
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
It is now slightly below implication. In order to do this, I had to change the notation from P ={E1,E2}=> Q to P >{E1,E2}=> Q because the prefer ={n is already used at level 70 for the distance of the metric.
-
- Feb 09, 2016
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
We can use a named representation because we only substitute closed values. This idea is borrowed from Pierce's Software Foundations. The named representation has the following advantages: * Programs are much better readable than those using De Bruijn indexes. * Substitutions on closed terms (where all variables are explicit strings) can be performed by a mere simpl instead of Autosubst's asimpl. The performance of simpl seems better than asimpl. * Syntactic sugar refolds better.
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
Ralf Jung authored
-