Re: [isabelle-dev] Interpretation in arbitrary targets.

2013-05-21 Thread Makarius
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013, Clemens Ballarin wrote: Quoting Makarius makar...@sketis.net: That is just a matter of modularity of concepts: the older (in a) notation was slightly generalized at some point to allow named contexts as sketched above In any case, I'm not sure how useful the old

Re: [isabelle-dev] Interpretation in arbitrary targets.

2013-05-21 Thread Lawrence Paulson
Naturally this notation is less important than before, and never strictly essential. But would we save much by eliminating it? Larry On 21 May 2013, at 11:46, Makarius makar...@sketis.net wrote: Does it mean you propose to discontinue (in a) at some point? An old idea on my list is to add

Re: [isabelle-dev] antiquotations and type_synonyms

2013-05-21 Thread Makarius
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Tobias Nipkow wrote: I was under the impression that type synonyms are expanded in typ antiquotations, but apparently not, at least not with 30624dab6054. If I write @{typ vname} I get vname, even if vname is a type synonym for string. Maybe it has always been like this,

Re: [isabelle-dev] Interpretation in arbitrary targets.

2013-05-21 Thread Lars Noschinski
On 21.05.2013 12:46, Makarius wrote: An old idea on my list is to add some support to the Prover IDE to rework theories with many consecutive (in a) to use just one context a begin ... end around it -- this is also more efficient. Apart from that I have occasionally considered to provide

Re: [isabelle-dev] Interpretation in arbitrary targets.

2013-05-21 Thread Makarius
On Tue, 21 May 2013, Lars Noschinski wrote: On 21.05.2013 12:46, Makarius wrote: An old idea on my list is to add some support to the Prover IDE to rework theories with many consecutive (in a) to use just one context a begin ... end around it -- this is also more efficient. Apart from that I

Re: [isabelle-dev] Isabelle/jEdit: by vs. .. on faulty proofs

2013-05-21 Thread Makarius
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Lars Noschinski wrote: I just noticed (Isabelle rev. 30624dab6054) that by allows finishes a proof (even if the proof is faulty), while .. only finishes a proof if it can actually prove the goal. Is this intended behaviour or just an oversight? It is a consequence of

Re: [isabelle-dev] Alternative thoughts about certifying and reading input parameters to Isabelle command functions

2013-05-21 Thread Makarius
On Sat, 27 Apr 2013, Florian Haftmann wrote: fun gen_foo prep_1 … prep_n raw_x_1 … raw_x_n ctxt = let val x_1 = prep_1 ctxt raw_x_1; … val x_n = prep_n ctxt raw_x_n; in ctxt | … end; val foo = gen_foo cert_1 … cert_n; val foo_cmd = gen_foo read_1 … read_n; Here,

Re: [isabelle-dev] Interpretation in arbitrary targets.

2013-05-21 Thread Clemens Ballarin
Quoting Makarius makar...@sketis.net: Does it mean you propose to discontinue (in a) at some point? Exactly. Too early right now, but eventually this might make sense -- especially if the IDE provides suitable refactorings. Of course, this wouldn't let us scrap a lot of code, but the