Before this commit, the elaborator would only assign ?M <- P, if P was normalized. This is bad since normalization may "destroy" the structure of P.
For example, consider the constraint
[a : Bool; b : Bool; c : Bool] ⊢ ?M::1 ≺ implies a (implies b (and a b))
Before this, ?M::1 will not be assigned to the "implies-term" because the "implies-term" is not normalized yet.
So, the elaborator would continue to process the constraint, and convert it into:
[a : Bool; b : Bool; c : Bool] ⊢ ?M::1 ≺ if Bool a (if Bool b (if Bool (if Bool a (if Bool b false true) true) false true) true) true
Now, ?M::1 is assigned to the term
if Bool a (if Bool b (if Bool (if Bool a (if Bool b false true) true) false true) true) true
This is bad, since the original structure was lost.
This commit also contains an example that only works after the commit is applied.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
The following call sequence is possible:
C++ -> Lua -> C++ -> Lua -> C++
The first block of C++ is the Lean main function.
The main function invokes the Lua interpreter.
The Lua interpreter invokes a C++ Lean API.
Then the Lean API invokes a callback implemented in Lua.
The Lua callback invokes another Lean API.
Now, suppose the Lean API throws an exception.
We want the C++ exception to propagate over the mixed C++/Lua call stack.
We use the clone/rethrow exception idiom to achieve this goal.
Before this commit, the C++ exceptions were converted into strings
using the method what(), and then they were propagated over the Lua
stack using lua_error. A lua_error was then converted into a lua_exception when going back to C++.
This solution was very unsatisfactory, since all C++ exceptions were being converted into a lua_exception, and consequently the structure of the exception was being lost.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
Instead of having m_interrupted flags in several components. We use a thread_local global variable.
The new approach is much simpler to get right since there is no risk of "forgetting" to propagate
the set_interrupt method to sub-components.
The plan is to support set_interrupt methods and m_interrupted flags only in tactic objects.
We need to support them in tactics and tacticals because we want to implement combinators/tacticals such as (try_for T M) that fails if tactic T does not finish in M ms.
For example, consider the tactic:
try-for (T1 ORELSE T2) 5
It tries the tactic (T1 ORELSE T2) for 5ms.
Thus, if T1 does not finish after 5ms an interrupt request is sent, and T1 is interrupted.
Now, if you do not have a m_interrupted flag marking each tactic, the ORELSE combinator will try T2.
The set_interrupt method for ORELSE tactical should turn on the m_interrupted flag.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
It is incorrect to apply substitutions during normalization.
The problem is that we do not have support for tracking justifications in the normalizer. So, substitutions were being silently applied during normalization. Thus, the correctness of the conflict resolution in the elaboration was being affected.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
We need that when we normalize the assignment in a metavariable environment.
That is, we replace metavariable in a substitution with other assignments.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
elaborator was not handling max constraints where one of the arguments was a Bool. Example:
ctx |- max(Bool, Type) == ?M
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
We may miss solutions, but the solutions found are much more readable.
For example, without this option, for elaboration problem
Theorem Example4 (a b c d e : N) (H: (a = b ∧ b = e ∧ b = c) ∨ (a = d ∧ d = c)) : (h a c) = (h c a) :=
DisjCases H
(fun H1 : _,
let AeqC := Trans (Conjunct1 H1) (Conjunct2 (Conjunct2 H1))
in CongrH AeqC (Symm AeqC))
(fun H1 : _,
let AeqC := Trans (Conjunct1 H1) (Conjunct2 H1)
in CongrH AeqC (Symm AeqC))
the elaborator generates
Theorem Example4 (a b c d e : N) (H : a = b ∧ b = e ∧ b = c ∨ a = d ∧ d = c) : (h a c) = (h c a) :=
DisjCases
H
(λ H1 : if
Bool
(if Bool (a = b) (if Bool (if Bool (if Bool (b = e) (if Bool (b = c) ⊥ ⊤) ⊤) ⊥ ⊤) ⊥ ⊤) ⊤)
⊥
⊤,
let AeqC := Trans (Conjunct1 H1) (Conjunct2 (Conjunct2 H1)) in CongrH AeqC (Symm AeqC))
(λ H1 : if Bool (if Bool (a = d) (if Bool (d = c) ⊥ ⊤) ⊤) ⊥ ⊤,
let AeqC := Trans (Conjunct1 H1) (Conjunct2 H1) in CongrH AeqC (Symm AeqC))
The solution is correct, but it is not very readable. The problem is that the elaborator expands the definitions of \/ and /\.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
Motivations:
- We have been writing several comments of the form "... trace/justification..." and "this trace object justify ...".
- Avoid confusion with util/trace.h
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
