check details after removing next sib

[ivoysey]

• [x] line numbers in example
• [x] rule statements
• [x] no text that's out of date and talks about next sib
• [x] include in discussion of action macros?

[ivoysey]

i believe that i did these things correctly, but it'd be good if someone else double checked me. the relevant commit to look at the diff for is https://github.com/hazelgrove/hazelnut-popl17/commit/95b35587ef8cae23d2625f4c843db066664679c5

[cyrus-]

Just took a look, looks right to me.

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 3:51 PM Ian Voysey notifications@github.com wrote:

i believe that i did these things correctly, but it'd be good if someone else double checked me. the relevant commit to look at the diff for is 95b3558 https://github.com/hazelgrove/hazelnut-popl17/commit/95b35587ef8cae23d2625f4c843db066664679c5

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/hazelgrove/hazelnut-popl17/issues/11#issuecomment-249977977, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AARIPrZtscUNZI2X_Rwa227vLJ3MFiW_ks5quXOrgaJpZM4KHO5Z .

[ivoysey]

Alright. Leave this issue open until we figure out if we want to make a comment in the text about derived actions? next sib but also {left, right}-most hole and only hole remaining are sort of the obvious examples to motivate that, now.