Re: [PG-devel] An update on porting PG to Coq 8.5's new APIs
On 2016-06-16 15:44, "Paul A. Steckler"writes: > I'm the one who'll be doing the programming on this project. > > As a long-time consumer of OCaml Weekly News, I'm happy to reciprocate > by exposing what APIs are needed. :-) > > The coqtop XML API concludes each response with a tag. We can > probably offer something to indicate when that's happened. It sounds perfect, thanks a lot. Alan -- OpenPGP Key ID : 040D0A3B4ED2E5C7 Monthly Athmospheric CO₂, Mauna Loa Obs. 2015-05: 403.94, 2016-05: 407.70 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ ProofGeneral-devel mailing list ProofGeneral-devel@inf.ed.ac.uk http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/proofgeneral-devel
Re: [PG-devel] An update on porting PG to Coq 8.5's new APIs
Hi Alan, We're hoping to get a pretty flexible codebase in the end, but more details on your use case would be useful :) What are the main difficulties that you ran into with the current codebase ? Clément. On 2016-06-16 03:27, Alan Schmitt wrote: > Hello Clément, > > Will this rewrite be monolithic, or will it be possible to use it to > interact with Coq through elisp? I'm particularly interested in > improving org-babel support for Coq (which works but is not very > robust). > > Thanks, > > Alan > 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
Re: [PG-devel] An update on porting PG to Coq 8.5's new APIs
On 16/06/16 00:07, Clément Pit--Claudel wrote: > On 2016-06-15 17:51, Makarius wrote: >> Concerning the "new" prover APIs of Coq and Isabelle in general: I was >> in contact with Enrico Tassi when he introduced this for Coq -- it was >> part of our Paral-ITP project at that time. My general impression is >> that the new Coq API is more conservative than the PIDE protocol of >> Isabelle: PIDE is quite demanding on the other side to process a lot of >> information in real-time. > > Not sure whether this is what you had in mind, but there does exist a PIDE > implementation built on top of the new Coq API > (https://bitbucket.org/coqpide/pidetop). It's used by at least one Coq IDE > (Coqoon — it's pretty cool, btw). Yes, that is by Carst Tankink -- I was working with him over 6 months, before I left France. Later the Coqoon guys also joined the move, because I encouraged them to do that, but it never became first-class for Coq. You see, I am somehow behind many of the prover IDE modernization projects, but not all of them. Ultimately, what counts is what really works, and what is really maintained. Makarius 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
Re: [PG-devel] An update on porting PG to Coq 8.5's new APIs
On 2016-06-15 17:51, Makarius wrote: > Concerning the "new" prover APIs of Coq and Isabelle in general: I was > in contact with Enrico Tassi when he introduced this for Coq -- it was > part of our Paral-ITP project at that time. My general impression is > that the new Coq API is more conservative than the PIDE protocol of > Isabelle: PIDE is quite demanding on the other side to process a lot of > information in real-time. Not sure whether this is what you had in mind, but there does exist a PIDE implementation built on top of the new Coq API (https://bitbucket.org/coqpide/pidetop). It's used by at least one Coq IDE (Coqoon — it's pretty cool, btw). 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
Re: [PG-devel] An update on porting PG to Coq 8.5's new APIs
On 2016-06-15 17:41, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> There might be a tiny minority of Isabelle users who did not follow new >> releases in the last 2 years and are still using Isabelle2014 with Proof >> General. I don't see a problem with that: they just won't be able to >> upgrade Proof General and remain stable on both. > > In an ideal world, the new PG Coq code should make it easier to support > the "new" Isabelle API. It would be good for someone somewhat familiar > with the "new" Isabelle API to keep an eye on the new PG Coq code (or for > those working on the new PG Coq code to take a look at the "new" > Isabelle API). Thanks Stefan :) I share that hope; I think the new code will be a good basis for such a development. I've looked at a few other protocols over the last year, including the Isabelle protocol/PIDE, Dafny's and F*'s protocols, and some of the stuff that David wrote about PGIP; extending the new code to support these things should be much easier than it would have been previously. Cheers, Clément. 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
Re: [PG-devel] An update on porting PG to Coq 8.5's new APIs
On 15/06/16 23:41, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> There might be a tiny minority of Isabelle users who did not follow new >> releases in the last 2 years and are still using Isabelle2014 with Proof >> General. I don't see a problem with that: they just won't be able to >> upgrade Proof General and remain stable on both. > > In an ideal world, the new PG Coq code should make it easier to support > the "new" Isabelle API. It would be good for someone somewhat familiar > with the "new" Isabelle API to keep an eye on the new PG Coq code (or for > those working on the new PG Coq code to take a look at the "new" > Isabelle API). I have tried to activate people still interested in Emacs over many years, in order to take a look what is going on in Isabelle/PIDE. I don't think anybody will suddenly show up, although one could give such a hypothetical person a last chance by posting on isabelle-users. Concerning the "new" prover APIs of Coq and Isabelle in general: I was in contact with Enrico Tassi when he introduced this for Coq -- it was part of our Paral-ITP project at that time. My general impression is that the new Coq API is more conservative than the PIDE protocol of Isabelle: PIDE is quite demanding on the other side to process a lot of information in real-time. This is actually the deeper reason, why I gave up the single-threaded LISP machine of Emacs in 2007 and moved towards the multi-threaded JVM, even though the JVM is a bit ugly. BTW, I complained about the "master / slave" terminology of the new Coq protocol when Enrico introduced that in 2012/2013, not for P.C. reasons but for technological ones. In PIDE, the front-end and back-end are peers that continuously exchange a lot of information in both directions. Makarius ___ ProofGeneral-devel mailing list ProofGeneral-devel@inf.ed.ac.uk http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/proofgeneral-devel
Re: [PG-devel] An update on porting PG to Coq 8.5's new APIs
On 2016-06-15 17:31, Makarius wrote: > One could formally ask on the isabelle-users mailing list, if anybody > wants to join pg-devel for further discussion, although I wouldn't > expect much from it. Thanks! Feel free to post such an email there, but I wouldn't press much for it: I share you analysis that staying with the current release is a good option for these people. 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
Re: [PG-devel] An update on porting PG to Coq 8.5's new APIs
>> 2. Refactor PG to delimit new interfaces, and somehow support both the old >> REPL mode and the new async mode. >> 3. Refactor PG to use the new async mode, dropping the REPL and support for >> old proof assistants on the way. Actually, I think the best way to do 2 is to first do 3 and then see how to merge the new and the old. > There might be a tiny minority of Isabelle users who did not follow new > releases in the last 2 years and are still using Isabelle2014 with Proof > General. I don't see a problem with that: they just won't be able to > upgrade Proof General and remain stable on both. In an ideal world, the new PG Coq code should make it easier to support the "new" Isabelle API. It would be good for someone somewhat familiar with the "new" Isabelle API to keep an eye on the new PG Coq code (or for those working on the new PG Coq code to take a look at the "new" Isabelle API). Stefan ___ ProofGeneral-devel mailing list ProofGeneral-devel@inf.ed.ac.uk http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/proofgeneral-devel
Re: [PG-devel] An update on porting PG to Coq 8.5's new APIs
On 15/06/16 23:17, Clément Pit--Claudel wrote: > It would be useful to hear from current users of PG for proof assistants > other than Coq, to see if we could think of a transition plan for them (in > particular, if there exists a newer, asynchronous protocol for that proof > assistant, it would be good to hear more about it with the hope of supporting > is as well once the Coq port is completed). It would also be useful to hear > from users of less-commonly-used features of PG, so that we can make sure > that they remain compatible. There might be a tiny minority of Isabelle users who did not follow new releases in the last 2 years and are still using Isabelle2014 with Proof General. I don't see a problem with that: they just won't be able to upgrade Proof General and remain stable on both. One could formally ask on the isabelle-users mailing list, if anybody wants to join pg-devel for further discussion, although I wouldn't expect much from it. Makarius 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