With that toploop plugin installed on the coqtop side installed, what does Proof General see from its shell?
-- Paul On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Clément Pit--Claudel <clement....@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Here's another approach that I forgot to mention: we could build a separate > Emacs toploop as a plugin, which would inherit most of CoqIDE's toploop (you > know that I have mixed feelings about that, but it may be the most pragmatic > approach). > > Clément. > > On 2016-05-05 10:17, Clément Pit--Claudel wrote: >> 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 protocol. >> >> 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? >> Clément. >> >> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ProofGeneral-devel mailing list >> ProofGeneral-devel@inf.ed.ac.uk >> http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/proofgeneral-devel >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ProofGeneral-devel mailing list > ProofGeneral-devel@inf.ed.ac.uk > http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/proofgeneral-devel _______________________________________________ ProofGeneral-devel mailing list ProofGeneral-devel@inf.ed.ac.uk http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/proofgeneral-devel
