Stefan Monnier <monn...@iro.umontreal.ca> writes: >> In my opinion, it seems very likely that the branch will never reach a >> working state; mainly because it would be hard to justify putting time >> to fix it when you have other alternatives that allow a much lightweight >> and robust implementation. > > I'm not up to speed on those alternatives. What would these be?
As of today, you have coq-serapi[1], which was specifically designed to make interaction with Emacs easy. Even if I am sure the protocol would need adjustments, it already provides a way more convenient interface than the XML protocol. Also, a LSP server for Coq is expected to appear very soon. Cheers, E. [1] https://github.com/ejgallego/coq-serapi _______________________________________________ ProofGeneral-devel mailing list ProofGeneral-devel@inf.ed.ac.uk http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/proofgeneral-devel
