Not entirely clear to me :) I think there'd be some amount of design work there 
as well.

On 2016-05-05 10:39, Paul A. Steckler wrote:
> 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
> 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
ProofGeneral-devel mailing list
ProofGeneral-devel@inf.ed.ac.uk
http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/proofgeneral-devel

Reply via email to