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 >
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
