You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In Flèche's TOC, we don't track scope of names, so in some cases shadowing happens. For example, in the following file:
Definition a := 3.
Section Bar.
Hypothesis (a : nat).
....
End Bar.
a in the section will shadow the first definition.
I wonder what the best remedy is here, other than the already planned fix for #332 , maybe we can hotfix this by qualifying hypothesis with their section name? (tho this results in some weird setup)
In general, Coq namespace semantics are a bit strange so it is not easy to mirror them easily in our TOC.
In general, I'm not sure how to make the naming in the start API fully reliable. We could allow for a document position, but that also has its own problems (how is the client going to resolve name to a position anyways)
Indeed, this is not really an error, but more like the map from names to locations we are using (toc for "table of contents") returns the latter location.
To solve this, we need to figure out a way to disambiguate that.
Originally reported by @gbdrt via mail.
In Flèche's TOC, we don't track scope of names, so in some cases shadowing happens. For example, in the following file:
a
in the section will shadow the first definition.I wonder what the best remedy is here, other than the already planned fix for #332 , maybe we can hotfix this by qualifying hypothesis with their section name? (tho this results in some weird setup)
In general, Coq namespace semantics are a bit strange so it is not easy to mirror them easily in our TOC.
In general, I'm not sure how to make the naming in the
start
API fully reliable. We could allow for a document position, but that also has its own problems (how is the client going to resolve name to a position anyways)cc #322
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: