Hi Paul,

You could indeed modify PG to handle the first prompt differently, or even Coq.
In the long run, though, I don't think the approach is sustainable. PG is very 
much hardcoded to expect one prompt for every query it sends: thus, even though 
you may get something working pretty quickly by hacking around this prompt 
thing, I think we'll see more breakages with every evolution of the new 

Here's a slightly different idea. Right now, PG adds an abstraction layer on 
top of a REPL model. What you could do is reimplement the same abstraction, but 
on top of Coq's new asynchronous model. Concretely, my suggestion is to make a 
separate library to talk to Coq's new API, which would provide the same 
interface (proof-shell-invisible-command, proof-shell-ready-prover, 
proof-shell-invisible-cmd-get-result, etc.).

I think this would make your life easier. You would:

1. Identify a small (hopefully) collection of functions that Coq-ProofGeneral 
actually depends on (some sort of semi-explicit interface, essentially).
2. Implement support for these functions using Coq's new API model
3. Modify the current implementation to call these functions or the legacy ones 
depending on the version of Coq.

What do you think?

On 2016-05-05 09:48, Paul A. Steckler wrote:
> I've already mentioned the issue described below to Clément Pit-Claudel
> and Pierre Courtieu, maybe others on this list have thoughts on it.
> Proof General is welded to a model of receiving prompts from a prover.
> After it's received a prompt, PG can send something back to the
> prover.
> The ideslave (politically incorrectly-named) mode in Coq, developed
> for CoqIDE abandons that model. In that mode, Coq just waits for XML
> from an IDE, without first offering a prompt.
> In ideslave mode, it seems that Coq sends back responses wrapped in
> <value> tags, so you can use that as a pseudo-prompt. Hmm, I think the
> prompt regexp would have to look for both the closing tag, and the
> single-tag version, <value ... />.
> Even with that, there's still a bootstrapping issue, because there's
> no prompt to s start with. I could probably modify PG to not look for
> that first prompt.
> Is there some good way to handle this?
> -- Paul
> _______________________________________________
> ProofGeneral-devel mailing list
> ProofGeneral-devel@inf.ed.ac.uk
> http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/proofgeneral-devel

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

ProofGeneral-devel mailing list

Reply via email to