summary |
shortlog |
changelog |
graph |
tags |
bookmarks |
branches |
files | gz |
help

(0) -10000 -3000 -1000 -300 -100 -10 +10 +100 +300 +1000 +3000 +10000 +30000 tip

(0) -10000 -3000 -1000 -300 -100 -10 +10 +100 +300 +1000 +3000 +10000 +30000 tip

renamed enter_forward_proof to enter_proof_body;
renamed exit_local_theory to end_local_theory;
added local_theory_to_proof;
tuned;

added peek;

interpretation_in_locale: standalone goal setup;
moved theorem statements to bottom;

tuned;

renamed print_lthms to print_facts, do not insist on proof state;
renamed Toplevel.enter_forward_proof to Toplevel.enter_proof_body;

print_evaluated_term: Toplevel.context_of;

replaced attributes_update by map_attributes;

Toplevel.local_theory_to_proof: proper target;

Toplevel.local_theory: proper target;
removed dead code;

To be consistent with "induct", I renamed "fixing" to "arbitrary".
However I am not very fond of "arbitrary" - e.g. it clashes with
"arbitrary" of HOL. Both Gentzen (at least in the Szabo translation)
and Velleman (in How to prove it: a structured approach) use
"arbitrary".
Still, I wonder whether "generalising" is a good compromise?