wenzelm [Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:57:38 +0200] rev 21005
interpretation_in_locale: standalone goal setup;
moved theorem statements to bottom;
wenzelm [Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:57:35 +0200] rev 21004
tuned;
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;
wenzelm [Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:57:29 +0200] rev 21002
print_evaluated_term: Toplevel.context_of;
wenzelm [Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:57:24 +0200] rev 21001
replaced attributes_update by map_attributes;
wenzelm [Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:57:20 +0200] rev 21000
Toplevel.local_theory_to_proof: proper target;
wenzelm [Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:57:15 +0200] rev 20999
Toplevel.local_theory: proper target;
removed dead code;
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?
paulson [Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:50:43 +0200] rev 20997
Extended combinators now disabled
paulson [Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:50:16 +0200] rev 20996
abstraction is now turned OFF...