methods
It is not safe to use seekg for textual files. Here is a fragment from a
C++ manual:
seekg() and seekp()
This pair of functions serve respectively to change the position of stream pointers get and put. Both functions are overloaded with two different prototypes:
seekg ( pos_type position );
seekp ( pos_type position );
Using this prototype the stream pointer is changed to an absolute position from the beginning of the file. The type required is the same as that returned by functions tellg and tellp.
seekg ( off_type offset, seekdir direction );
seekp ( off_type offset, seekdir direction );
Using this prototype, an offset from a concrete point determined by
parameter direction can be specified. It can be:
ios::beg offset specified from the beginning of the stream
ios::cur offset specified from the current position of the stream pointer
ios::end offset specified from the end of the stream
The values of both stream pointers get and put are counted in different
ways for text files than for binary files, since in text mode files some
modifications to the appearance of some special characters can
occur. For that reason it is advisable to use only the first prototype
of seekg and seekp with files opened in text mode and always use
non-modified values returned by tellg or tellp. With binary files, you
can freely use all the implementations for these functions. They should
not have any unexpected behavior.
After this commit, in the type checker, when checking convertability, we first compute a normal form without expanding opaque terms.
If the terms are convertible, then we are done, and saved a lot of time by not expanding unnecessary definitions.
If they are not, instead of throwing an error, we try again expanding the opaque terms.
This seems to be the best of both worlds.
The opaque flag is a hint for the type checker, but it would never prevent us from type checking a valid term.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
The elaborator produces better proof terms. This is particularly important when we have to prove the remaining holes using tactics.
For example, in one of the tests, the elaborator was producing the sub-expression
(λ x : N, if ((λ x::1 : N, if (P a x x::1) ⊥ ⊤) == (λ x : N, ⊤)) ⊥ ⊤)
After, this commit it produces
(λ x : N, ¬ ∀ x::1 : N, ¬ P a x x::1)
The expressions above are definitionally equal, but the second is easier to work with.
Question: do we really need hidden definitions?
Perhaps, we can use only the opaque flag.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
This commit fixes a problem exposed by t13.lean.
It has a theorem of the form:
Theorem T1 (A B : Bool) : A /\ B -> B /\ A :=
fun assumption : A /\ B,
let lemma1 := (show A by auto),
lemma2 := (show B by auto)
in (show B /\ A by auto)
When to_goal creates a goal for the metavariable associated with (show B /\ A by auto) it receives a context and proposition of the form
[ A : Bool, B : Bool, assumption : A /\ B, lemma1 := Conjunct1 assumption, lemma2 := Conjunct2 assumption ] |- B /\ A
The context_entries "lemma1 := Conjunct1 assumption" and "lemma2 := Conjunct2 assumption" do not have a domain (aka type).
Before this commit, to_goal would simply replace and references to "lemma1" and "lemma2" in "B /\ A" with their definitions.
Note that, "B /\ A" does not contain references to "lemma1" and "lemma2". Then, the following goal is created
A : Bool, B : Bool, assumption : A /\ B |- B /\ A
That is, the lemmas are not available when solving B /\ A.
Thus, the tactic auto produced the following (weird) proof for T1, where the lemmas are computed but not used.
Theorem T1 (A B : Bool) (assumption : A ∧ B) : B ∧ A :=
let lemma1 := Conjunct1 assumption,
lemma2 := Conjunct2 assumption
in Conj (Conjunct2 assumption) (Conjunct1 assumption)
This commit fixed that. It computes the types of "Conjunct1 assumption" and "Conjunct2 assumption", and creates the goal
A : Bool, B : Bool, assumption : A /\ B, lemma1 : A, lemma2 : B |- B /\ A
After this commit, the proof for theorem T1 is
Theorem T1 (A B : Bool) (assumption : A ∧ B) : B ∧ A :=
let lemma1 := Conjunct1 assumption,
lemma2 := Conjunct2 assumption
in Conj lemma2 lemma1
as expected.
Finally, this example suggests that the encoding
Theorem T1 (A B : Bool) : A /\ B -> B /\ A :=
fun assumption : A /\ B,
let lemma1 : A := (by auto),
lemma2 : B := (by auto)
in (show B /\ A by auto)
is more efficient than
Theorem T1 (A B : Bool) : A /\ B -> B /\ A :=
fun assumption : A /\ B,
let lemma1 := (show A by auto),
lemma2 := (show B by auto)
in (show B /\ A by auto)
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
