Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Option Generalizable All Variables documentation is incomplete #6030

Closed
RalfJung opened this issue Oct 27, 2017 · 9 comments
Closed

Option Generalizable All Variables documentation is incomplete #6030

RalfJung opened this issue Oct 27, 2017 · 9 comments
Labels
kind: documentation Additions or improvement to documentation.

Comments

@RalfJung
Copy link
Contributor

RalfJung commented Oct 27, 2017

Version

8.7.dev

Operating system

Linux

Description of the problem

I just learned (by reading std++ source code) that Coq has an option Generalizable All Variables. However, that option is not documented at https://coq.inria.fr/refman/option-index.html.

EDIT: Moved separation the two effects to #6888.

@Zimmi48
Copy link
Member

Zimmi48 commented Oct 28, 2017

The option is documented but is missing an index. See https://coq.inria.fr/distrib/current/refman/gallina-ext.html#hevea_command71. I don't know what Print Tables so I can't comment on this.

@ppedrot
Copy link
Member

ppedrot commented Oct 29, 2017

FTR, it's not displayed by Print Tables because it is not an option but a command. It would be nice if it were an option, but we can't do it that because it can take a list of variables as arguments.

@RalfJung
Copy link
Contributor Author

Is there any way to dump all the "option-like" state in Coq? The fact that this is not printed meant it took me really long to even figure out why the same code behaves different in one file vs. another.

@RalfJung
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Zimmi48

The option is documented but is missing an index. See https://coq.inria.fr/distrib/current/refman/gallina-ext.html#hevea_command71.

That documentation is incomplete then, it fails to mention the effect on Instance.

@RalfJung
Copy link
Contributor Author

Should I open a separate bug asking for a way to have generalization in `{...} but not in Instance?

@Zimmi48
Copy link
Member

Zimmi48 commented Oct 29, 2017

Given how weird the effect on Instance is, and that this effect is not documented, I would consider it a bug (even if I'm pretty sure that @mattam82 intended for this behavior). Yes, please open a request for an option to decide if Generalize All Variables has a special effect on Instance.

@RalfJung RalfJung changed the title Option Generalizable All Variables is not documented and not printed Option Generalizable All Variables is not documented Mar 2, 2018
@RalfJung
Copy link
Contributor Author

RalfJung commented Mar 2, 2018

I moved separating the two effects to a new issue #6888. This is now just about the lack of documentation.

@Zimmi48 Zimmi48 added the kind: documentation Additions or improvement to documentation. label Mar 2, 2018
@Zimmi48 Zimmi48 changed the title Option Generalizable All Variables is not documented Option Generalizable All Variables documentation is incomplete Mar 2, 2018
@tchajed
Copy link
Contributor

tchajed commented Jul 18, 2018

Note that this isn't specific to generalizable all variables (see this example) - it's just that implicit generalization in instances does not require any syntax, which is indeed surprising and I agree that it should at least be possible to disable the instance generalization, even if that remains the default.

@Blaisorblade
Copy link
Contributor

I'm taking the liberty of closing this issue because it seems fixed. Feel free to reopen this, or open a new issue with an up-to-date description of what should happen now.

Rationale:

Repository owner moved this from Fixing to Done in User documentation Dec 17, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind: documentation Additions or improvement to documentation.
Projects
Archived in project
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants