I don't see any reason for allowing unnamed toplevel lemmas in a theory. Why should we continue to offer it? They are not useful, except for demo purposes, but then there are alternatives and it is also a bad idea to demo something that should be avoided.

Tobias

On 05/11/2020 16:48, Makarius wrote:
On 05/11/2020 16:39, Fabian Huch wrote:

unnamed facts at the top level of a theory (i.e., unnamed lemmas or theorems)
don't work smoothly with the rest of Isabelle.

I see three possible ways to do improve this:

This behaviour it formal items with empty name binding is rather profound in
Isabelle.

The treatment of unnamed facts in particular is also fairly canonical
concerning our own standards.


Can you say what is wrong with this, and why it needs to be "improved"?


        Makarius
_______________________________________________
isabelle-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman46.in.tum.de/mailman/listinfo/isabelle-dev


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
isabelle-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman46.in.tum.de/mailman/listinfo/isabelle-dev

Reply via email to