Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Take a look at how section discharging works with proof states #28

Open
LasseBlaauwbroek opened this issue Aug 5, 2021 · 1 comment
Open

Take a look at how section discharging works with proof states #28

LasseBlaauwbroek opened this issue Aug 5, 2021 · 1 comment

Comments

@LasseBlaauwbroek
Copy link
Member

That is, can we do more to discharge definitions into recorded proof states? It is not clear whether or not this is actually desirable.
LasseBlaauwbroek added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 22, 2022
@LasseBlaauwbroek
Add a note that s-expressions are essentially broken until #28 is fixed
5cf29ab
@LasseBlaauwbroek
Copy link
Member Author

As of Coq 8.14 this has become more pressing due to our reliance on Inductive.expand_case in Sexpr.constr2s, which crashes because the recorded proof states are not properly discharged.

@LasseBlaauwbroek LasseBlaauwbroek mentioned this issue Jan 23, 2022
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@LasseBlaauwbroek