- Nov 03, 2016
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
The old choice for ★ was a arbitrary: the precedence of the ASCII asterisk * was fixed at a wrong level in Coq, so we had to pick another symbol. The ★ was a random choice from a unicode chart. The new symbol ∗ (as proposed by David Swasey) corresponds better to conventional practise and matches the symbol we use on paper.
-
- Nov 01, 2016
- Oct 31, 2016
-
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
- Oct 28, 2016
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
- Oct 27, 2016
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
Janno authored
-
- Oct 25, 2016
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
There are now two proof mode tactics for dealing with modalities: - `iModIntro` : introduction of a modality - `iMod pm_trm as (x1 ... xn) "ipat"` : eliminate a modality The behavior of these tactics can be controlled by instances of the `IntroModal` and `ElimModal` type class. We have declared instances for later, except 0, basic updates and fancy updates. The tactic `iMod` is flexible enough that it can also eliminate an updates around a weakest pre, and so forth. The corresponding introduction patterns of these tactics are `!>` and `>`. These tactics replace the tactics `iUpdIntro`, `iUpd` and `iTimeless`. Source of backwards incompatability: the introduction pattern `!>` is used for introduction of arbitrary modalities. It used to introduce laters by stripping of a later of each hypotheses.
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
And also rename the corresponding proof mode tactics.
-
- Oct 13, 2016
-
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
- Oct 12, 2016
-
-
Ralf Jung authored
rename program_logic.{ownership -> wsat}. It really is about world satisfaction and invariants more than about ownership.
-
- Oct 06, 2016
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
- Oct 05, 2016
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
- Sep 27, 2016
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
As proposed by JH Jourdan in issue 34.
-
- Sep 19, 2016
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
This closes issue 32.
-
- Sep 09, 2016
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
Before this commit, given "HP" : P and "H" : P -★ Q with Q persistent, one could write: iSpecialize ("H" with "#HP") to eliminate the wand in "H" while keeping the resource "HP". The lemma: own_valid : own γ x ⊢ ✓ x was the prototypical example where this pattern (using the #) was used. However, the pattern was too limited. For example, given "H" : P₁ -★ P₂ -★ Q", one could not write iSpecialize ("H" with "#HP₁") because P₂ -★ Q is not persistent, even when Q is. So, instead, this commit introduces the following tactic: iSpecialize pm_trm as # which allows one to eliminate implications and wands while being able to use all hypotheses to prove the premises, as well as being able to use all hypotheses to prove the resulting goal. In the case of iDestruct, we now check whether all branches of the introduction pattern start with an `#` (moving the hypothesis to the persistent context) or `%` (moving the hypothesis to the pure Coq context). If this is the case, we allow one to use all hypotheses for proving the premises, as well as for proving the resulting goal.
-
- Aug 27, 2016
-
-
Zhen Zhang authored
-
- Aug 26, 2016
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
- Aug 25, 2016
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
- Aug 24, 2016
-
-
Jacques-Henri Jourdan authored
-
Zhen Zhang authored
-
Zhen Zhang authored
-
Zhen Zhang authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
This is allowed as long as one of the conjuncts is thrown away (i.e. is a wildcard _ in the introduction pattern). It corresponds to the principle of "external choice" in linear logic.
-
- Aug 23, 2016
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
- Aug 22, 2016
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
This is more consistent with CAS, which also can be used on any value. Note that being able to (atomically) test for equality of any value and being able to CAS on any value is not realistic. See the discussion at https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/FP/iris-coq/issues/26, and in particular JH Jourdan's observation: I think indeed for heap_lang this is just too complicated. Anyway, the role of heap_lang is not to model any actual programming language, but rather to show that we can do proofs about certain programs. The fact that you can write unrealistic programs is not a problem, IMHO. The only thing which is important is that the program that we write are realistic (i.e., faithfully represents the algorithm we want to p This commit is based on a commit by Zhen Zhang who generalized equality to work on any literal (and not just integers).
-
- Aug 19, 2016
-
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
- Aug 09, 2016
-
-
Ralf Jung authored
-
- Aug 08, 2016
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
This generalization is surprisingly easy in Iris 3.0, so I could not resist not doing it :).
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
This makes stuff more uniform and also removes the need for the [inGFs] type class. Instead, there is now a type class [subG Σ1 Σ2] which expresses that a list of functors [Σ1] is contained in [Σ2].
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
- Aug 05, 2016
-
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
This better reflects the name of the bind rule. I renamed an internal tactic that was previously called wp_bind into wp_bind_core.
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
Use it to prove that tests/barrier_client and tests/heap_lang are adequate.
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
Also make those for introduction and elimination more symmetric: !% pure introduction % pure elimination !# always introduction # always elimination !> later introduction > pat timeless later elimination !==> view shift introduction ==> pat view shift elimination
-