| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
|
|
We try to encapsulate the future goals abstraction in the evar map.
A few calls to `save_future_goals` and `restore_future_goals` are still
there, but we try to minimize them.
This is a preliminary refactoring to make the invariants between the
shelf and future goals more explicit, before giving unification access
to the shelf, which is needed for #7825.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This corresponds more naturally to the use we make of them, as we don't need
fast indexation but we instead keep pushing terms on top of them.
|
|
Reviewed-by: SkySkimmer
Reviewed-by: herbelin
Ack-by: ppedrot
|
|
Add headers to a few files which were missing them.
|
|
|
|
Namely, Evd.evar_env and Evd.evar_filtered_env now take an additional
environment instead of querying the imperative global one. We percolate
this change as higher up as possible.
|
|
We also remove trailing whitespace.
Script used:
```bash
for i in `find . -name '*.ml' -or -name '*.mli' -or -name '*.mlg'`; do expand -i "$i" | sponge "$i"; sed -e's/[[:space:]]*$//' -i.bak "$i"; done
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Named evar_abstract_arguments, this field indicates if the evar
arguments corresponding to certain hypothesis can be immitated during
inversion or not. If the argument comes from an abstraction (the evar
was of arrow type), then imitation is disallowed as it gives unnatural
solutions, and lambda abstraction is preferred.
|
|
|
|
This avoids all the side effects associated with the manipulation of an
unresolvable flag. In the new design:
- The evar_map stores a set of evars that are candidates for typeclass
resolution, which can be retrieved and set.
We maintain the invariant that it always contains only undefined
evars.
- At the creation time of an evar (new_evar), we classify it as a
potential candidate of resolution.
- This uses a hook to test if the conclusion ends in a typeclass
application. (hook set in typeclasses.ml)
- This is an approximation if the conclusion is an existential (i.e.
not yet determined). In that case we register the evar as
potentially a typeclass instance, and later phases must consider
that case, dropping the evar if it is not a typeclass.
- One can pass the ~typeclass_candidate:false flag to new_evar to
prevent classification entirely. Typically this is for new goals
which should not ever be considered to be typeclass resolution
candidates.
- One can mark a subset of evars unresolvable later if
needed. Typically for clausenv, and marking future goals as
unresolvable even if they are typeclass goals. For clausenv for
example, after turing metas into evars we first (optionally) try a
typeclass resolution on the newly created evars and only then mark
the remaining newly created evars as subgoals. The intent of the
code looks clearer now.
This should prevent keeping testing if undefined evars are classes
all the time and crawling large sets when no typeclasses are present.
- Typeclass candidate evars stay candidates through
restriction/evar-evar solutions.
- Evd.add uses ~typeclass_candidate:false to avoid recomputing if the new
evar is a candidate. There's a deficiency in the API, in most use
cases of Evd.add we should rather use a:
`Evd.update_evar_info : evar_map -> Evar.t -> (evar_info -> evar_info)
-> evar_map`
Usually it is only about nf_evar'ing the evar_info's contents, which
doesn't change the evar candidate status.
- Typeclass resolution can now handle the set of candidates
functionally: it always starts from the set of candidates (and not the
whole undefined_map) and a filter on it, potentially splitting it in
connected components, does proof search for each component in an
evar_map with an empty set of typeclass evars (allowing clean
reentrancy), then reinstates the potential remaining unsolved
components and filtered out typeclass evars at the end of
resolution.
This means no more marking of resolvability/unresolvability
everywhere, and hopefully a more efficient implementation in general.
- This is on top of the cleanup of evar_info's currently but can
be made independent.
[typeclasses] Fix cases.ml: none of the new_evars should be typeclass candidates
Solve bug in inheritance of flags in evar-evar solutions.
Renaming unresolvable to typeclass_candidate (positive) and fix maybe_typeclass_hook
|
|
|
|
the specified version (i.e., skip over versions with proofview-only differences).
|
|
We bootstrap the circular evar_map <-> econstr dependency by moving
the internal EConstr.API module to Evd.MiniEConstr. Then we make the
Evd functions use econstr.
|
|
The V82 compatibility layer of the proof engine was used by cc
(congruence closure) for the sole purpose of maintaining an
environment and a sigma. We inline the corresponding env and sigma in
the state of cc algorithm to get rid of the compatibility layer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There don't really bring anything, we also correct some minor nits
with the printing function.
|
|
We do up to `Term` which is the main bulk of the changes.
|
|
Syntax removed in faa064c746e20a12b3c8f792f69537b18e387be6
|
|
|
|
Reminder of (some of) the reasons for removal:
- Despite the claim in sigma.mli, it does *not* prevent evar
leaks, something like:
fun env evd ->
let (evd',ev) = new_evar env evd in
(evd,ev)
will typecheck even with Sigma-like type annotations (with a proof of
reflexivity)
- The API stayed embryonic. Even typing functions were not ported to
Sigma.
- Some unsafe combinators (Unsafe.tclEVARS) were replaced with slightly
less unsafe ones (e.g. s_enter), but those ones were not marked unsafe
at all (despite still being so).
- There was no good story for higher order functions manipulating evar
maps. Without higher order, one can most of the time get away with
reusing the same name for the updated evar map.
- Most of the code doing complex things with evar maps was using unsafe
casts to sigma. This code should be fixed, but this is an orthogonal
issue.
Of course, this was showing a nice and elegant use of GADTs, but the
cost/benefit ratio in practice did not seem good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now it is a private field, locations are optional.
|
|
This removes quite a few unsafe casts. Unluckily, I had to reintroduce
the old non-module based names for these data structures, because I could
not reproduce easily the same hierarchy in EConstr.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
composition operator.
Short story:
This pull-request:
(1) removes the definition of the "right-to-left" function composition operator
(2) adds the definition of the "left-to-right" function composition operator
(3) rewrites the code relying on "right-to-left" function composition to rely on "left-to-right" function composition operator instead.
Long story:
In mathematics, function composition is traditionally denoted with ∘ operator.
Ocaml standard library does not provide analogous operator under any name.
Batteries Included provides provides two alternatives:
_ % _
and
_ %> _
The first operator one corresponds to the classical ∘ operator routinely used in mathematics.
I.e.:
(f4 % f3 % f2 % f1) x ≜ (f4 ∘ f3 ∘ f2 ∘ f1) x
We can call it "right-to-left" composition because:
- the function we write as first (f4) will be called as last
- and the function write as last (f1) will be called as first.
The meaning of the second operator is this:
(f1 %> f2 %> f3 %> f4) x ≜ (f4 ∘ f3 ∘ f2 ∘ f1) x
We can call it "left-to-right" composition because:
- the function we write as first (f1) will be called first
- and the function we write as last (f4) will be called last
That is, the functions are written in the same order in which we write and read them.
I think that it makes sense to prefer the "left-to-right" variant because
it enables us to write functions in the same order in which they will be actually called
and it thus better fits our culture
(we read/write from left to right).
|
|
mainly concerning referring to "Context.{Rel,Named}.get_{id,value,type}" functions.
If multiple modules define a function with a same name, e.g.:
Context.{Rel,Named}.get_type
those calls were prefixed with a corresponding prefix
to make sure that it is obvious which function is being called.
|
|
|
|
Some functions were left in the old paradigm because they are only used by the
unification algorithms, so they are not worthwhile to change for now.
|
|
The current solution may not be totally ideal though. We generate names for
anonymous evars on the fly at printing time, based on the Evar_kind data they
are wearing. This means in particular that the printed name of an anonymous
evar may change in the future because some unrelate evar has been solved or
introduced.
|
|
Originally, rel-context was represented as:
Context.rel_context = Names.Name.t * Constr.t option * Constr.t
Now it is represented as:
Context.Rel.t = LocalAssum of Names.Name.t * Constr.t
| LocalDef of Names.Name.t * Constr.t * Constr.t
Originally, named-context was represented as:
Context.named_context = Names.Id.t * Constr.t option * Constr.t
Now it is represented as:
Context.Named.t = LocalAssum of Names.Id.t * Constr.t
| LocalDef of Names.Id.t * Constr.t * Constr.t
Motivation:
(1) In "tactics/hipattern.ml4" file we define "test_strict_disjunction"
function which looked like this:
let test_strict_disjunction n lc =
Array.for_all_i (fun i c ->
match (prod_assum (snd (decompose_prod_n_assum n c))) with
| [_,None,c] -> isRel c && Int.equal (destRel c) (n - i)
| _ -> false) 0 lc
Suppose that you do not know about rel-context and named-context.
(that is the case of people who just started to read the source code)
Merlin would tell you that the type of the value you are destructing
by "match" is:
'a * 'b option * Constr.t (* worst-case scenario *)
or
Named.Name.t * Constr.t option * Constr.t (* best-case scenario (?) *)
To me, this is akin to wearing an opaque veil.
It is hard to figure out the meaning of the values you are looking at.
In particular, it is hard to discover the connection between the value
we are destructing above and the datatypes and functions defined
in the "kernel/context.ml" file.
In this case, the connection is there, but it is not visible
(between the function above and the "Context" module).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now consider, what happens when the reader see the same function
presented in the following form:
let test_strict_disjunction n lc =
Array.for_all_i (fun i c ->
match (prod_assum (snd (decompose_prod_n_assum n c))) with
| [LocalAssum (_,c)] -> isRel c && Int.equal (destRel c) (n - i)
| _ -> false) 0 lc
If the reader haven't seen "LocalAssum" before, (s)he can use Merlin
to jump to the corresponding definition and learn more.
In this case, the connection is there, and it is directly visible
(between the function above and the "Context" module).
(2) Also, if we already have the concepts such as:
- local declaration
- local assumption
- local definition
and we describe these notions meticulously in the Reference Manual,
then it is a real pity not to reinforce the connection
of the actual code with the abstract description we published.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The occur check is done even if the flag [unsafe] is set to true. The rational is that a tactic cannot control where it takes pieces of terms from (and hence will not generally make terms which pass the occur-check), and it would be painful to ask every tactic which takes a term as an argument to do an occur check before [refine].
I reused the same error than used by unification. It gives a pretty nice error message. An alternative would be to have a dedicated error with pretty much the same error message. I'm not sure which is best, so I went for the simplest one.
The same check is done in the compatibility layer.
Fixes a reported bug which I cannot locate for some reason.
|
|
Uses the new architecture which allows to keep track of all new evars. The [future_goals] are flushed at the end of the tactics, the [principal_future_goal] is ignored.
|
