induction/destruct also clear section variables#22004
Draft
SkySkimmer wants to merge 1 commit into
Draft
Conversation
We already have the syntax `destruct (x)` if we don't want to clear, so this maybe-don't-clear behaviour may not be a good idea. OTOH we still don't clear when the variable appears through a definition (indirect occurrence) since that would be invalid. With this patch this causes warning cannot-remove-as-expected.
SkySkimmer
added
the
request: full CI
coqbot-app
Bot
removed
the
request: full CI
Contributor
|
I don't really understand the code changes, but since section variables are already cleared when they appear in the indices of the inductive being destructed, this can be seen as a parity change. I also have some questions about the status of section variables in proofs, but I'll ask it in the other PR. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We already have the syntax
destruct (x)if we don't want to clear, so this maybe-don't-clear behaviour may not be a good idea.OTOH we still don't clear when the variable appears through a definition (indirect occurrence) since that would be invalid. With this patch this causes warning cannot-remove-as-expected.