Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:57:45 +0200 renamed enter_forward_proof to enter_proof_body;
wenzelm [Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:57:45 +0200] rev 21007
renamed enter_forward_proof to enter_proof_body; renamed exit_local_theory to end_local_theory; added local_theory_to_proof; tuned;
Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:57:42 +0200 added peek;
wenzelm [Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:57:42 +0200] rev 21006
added peek;
Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:57:38 +0200 interpretation_in_locale: standalone goal setup;
wenzelm [Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:57:38 +0200] rev 21005
interpretation_in_locale: standalone goal setup; moved theorem statements to bottom;
Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:57:35 +0200 tuned;
wenzelm [Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:57:35 +0200] rev 21004
tuned;
Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:57:32 +0200 renamed print_lthms to print_facts, do not insist on proof state;
wenzelm [Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:57:32 +0200] rev 21003
renamed print_lthms to print_facts, do not insist on proof state; renamed Toplevel.enter_forward_proof to Toplevel.enter_proof_body;
Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:57:29 +0200 print_evaluated_term: Toplevel.context_of;
wenzelm [Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:57:29 +0200] rev 21002
print_evaluated_term: Toplevel.context_of;
Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:57:24 +0200 replaced attributes_update by map_attributes;
wenzelm [Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:57:24 +0200] rev 21001
replaced attributes_update by map_attributes;
Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:57:20 +0200 Toplevel.local_theory_to_proof: proper target;
wenzelm [Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:57:20 +0200] rev 21000
Toplevel.local_theory_to_proof: proper target;
Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:57:15 +0200 Toplevel.local_theory: proper target;
wenzelm [Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:57:15 +0200] rev 20999
Toplevel.local_theory: proper target; removed dead code;
Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:03:33 +0200 To be consistent with "induct", I renamed "fixing" to "arbitrary".
urbanc [Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:03:33 +0200] rev 20998
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?
(0) -10000 -3000 -1000 -300 -100 -10 +10 +100 +300 +1000 +3000 +10000 +30000 tip