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

NES in HB #144

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

NES in HB #144

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

CohenCyril
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@gares
Copy link
Member

gares commented Feb 15, 2021

Please open an issue saying to remove this when we decide to require a more recent coq-elpi

@CohenCyril
Copy link
Member Author

CohenCyril commented Feb 15, 2021

It's not about upgrading to a more recent coq-elpi (yet), it's about adding the NES.Snapshot (I did not manage to re-import NES.db nor did I manage to import nes.elpi to hotfix it)...

@CohenCyril
Copy link
Member Author

I need to make a PR in coq-elpi to add this feature though, and you will be right ;)

@CohenCyril
Copy link
Member Author

Done cf LPCIC/coq-elpi#212

@gares
Copy link
Member

gares commented Feb 15, 2021

Another problem I have with this is that "logging" is something I'm implementing in HB. And we definitely want calls to NES to be replaced by vernacular commands in plan-B, so I think we should Accumulate this file together with hb.elpi and hook into the logging infrastructure (in the other PR)

@CohenCyril
Copy link
Member Author

Another problem I have with this is that "logging" is something I'm implementing in HB. And we definitely want calls to NES to be replaced by vernacular commands in plan-B, so I think we should Accumulate this file together with hb.elpi and hook into the logging infrastructure (in the other PR)

I do not understand completely, shouldn't NES have its own logging infrastructure and incorporated in LPCIC/coq-elpi#212?

@gares
Copy link
Member

gares commented Feb 15, 2021

It could, but I did deliberately not put the logging code in coq-elpi because it is too experimental. You are right that its place is there, but it is not ready. The plan was to let it mature inside HB and only then move it back to coq-elpi.

@CohenCyril CohenCyril marked this pull request as draft March 25, 2021 18:32
@CohenCyril CohenCyril added this to the 1.2.0 milestone Mar 30, 2021
@gares gares modified the milestones: 1.2.0, 1.3.0 Jun 18, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants