This is very important when several Lua tactics are implemented in the
same Lua State object. In this case, even if we use the par
combinator, a Lua tactic will block the other Lua tactics running in
the same Lua State object.
With this commit, a Lua tactic can use yield to allow other tactics
in the same State object to execute.
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>
copy_values is not a big if-then-else anymore.
Before this change, whenever we added a new kind of userdata, we would have to update copy_values.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
The directory bindings/lua was getting too big and had too many dependencies.
Moreover, it was getting too painful to edit/maintain two different places.
Now, the bindings for module X are in the directory that defines X.
For example, the bindings for util/name.cpp are located at util/name.cpp.
The only exception is the kernel. We do not want to inflate the kernel
with Lua bindings. The bindings for the kernel classes are located
at bindings/kernel_bindings.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
Now, it produces the following outcomes:
1- A proof
2- A counterexample
3- A list of (unsolved) final states
Remark: the solve method does not check whether the proof or counterexample is correct.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
The idea is to make it clear that io_state is distinguish it from proof_state, and from leanlua_state.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
The main motivation is to break the remove the dependency frontends/lean <-- bindings/lua.
This dependency is undesirable because we want to expose the frontends/lean parser and pretty printer objects at bindings/lua.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
The new hash code has the property that given expr_cell * c1 and expr_cell * c2,
if c1 != c2 then there is a high propbability that c1->hash_alloc() != c2->hash_alloc().
The structural hash code hash() does not have this property because we may have
c1 != c2, but c1 and c2 are structurally equal.
The new hash code is only compatible with pointer equality.
By compatible we mean, if c1 == c2, then c1->hash_alloc() == c2->hash_alloc().
This property is obvious because hash_alloc() does not have side-effects.
The test tests/lua/big.lua exposes the problem fixed by this commit.
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>
For example, this feature is useful when displaying the integer value 10 with coercions enabled. In this case, we want to display "nat_to_int 10" instead of "10".
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>
This normalization rule is not really a computational rule.
It is essentially encoding the reflexivity axiom as computation.
It can also be abaused. For example, with this rule,
the following definition is valid:
Theorem Th : a = a := Refl b
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
