operator bool() may produce unwanted conversions.
For example, we had the following bug in the code base.
...
object const & obj = find_object(const_name(n));
if (obj && obj.is_builtin() && obj.get_name() == n)
...
obj.get_name() has type lean::name
n has type lean::expr
Both have 'operator bool()', then the compiler uses the operator to
convert them to Boolean, and then compare the result.
Of course, this is not our intention.
After this commit, the compiler correctly signs the error.
The correct code is
...
object const & obj = find_object(const_name(n));
if (obj && obj.is_builtin() && obj.get_name() == const_name(n))
...
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
When using tactics for proving theorems, a common pattern is
Theorem T : <proposition> := _.
apply <tactic>.
...
done.
This commit allows the user to write the simplified form:
Theorem T : <proposition>.
apply <tactic>.
...
done.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
Recursive functions that may go very deep should invoke the function check_stack. It throws an exception if the amount of stack space is limited.
The function check_system() is syntax sugar for
check_interrupted();
check_stack();
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
Proof/Cex builders and tactics implemented in Lua had a "strong reference" to script_state. If they are stored in the Lua state, then we get a cyclic reference.
That is, script_state points to these objects, and they point back to script_state.
To avoid this memory leak, this commit defines a weak reference for script_state objects. The Proof/Cex builders and tactics now store a weak reference to the Lua state.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
There was a bug in the app_rewriter1_tst. If we apply the ADD_COMM RW to
f(0), then the result should be f(0) since there is nothing to do for
ADD_COMM.
f(0) = f(0)
The proof for this equality should be Refl(Nat, f(0)). But it was
Refl(Nat -> Nat, f)
which is wrong. Somehow, the previous kernel didn't detect this type
mismatch and recent changes of the kernel found the problem.
I fixed the bug and re-enable the test as it was.
rewrite_* functions take the rewriting results of the sub-components and
construct the rewriting result for the main component.
For instance, rewrite_app function takes env, ctx, and the value v s.t.
v = (e_0 e_1 ... e_n)
and the rewriting results for e_i's as a vector(buffer)
(e'_0, pf_0 -- proof of e_0 = e'_0)
(e'_1, pf_1 -- proof of e_1 = e'_1)
...
(e'_n, pf_n -- proof of e_n = e'_n).
Then rewrite_app function construct the new v'
v' = (e'_0 e'_1 ... e'_n)
and the proof of v = v' which is constructed with pf_i's.
These functions are used in the component rewriters such as app_RW and
let_type_RW, as well as more complicated rewriters such as depth
rewriter.
In expression code blocks, we do not have to write a "return".
After this commit, the argument of an apply command is a Lua expression instead of a Lua block of code. That is, we can now write
apply (** REPEAT(ORELSE(imp_tactic, conj_tactic, conj_hyp_tactic, assumption_tactic)) **)
instead of
apply (** return REPEAT(ORELSE(imp_tactic, conj_tactic, conj_hyp_tactic, assumption_tactic)) **)
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
For example, after this commit, we can write
simple_tac = REPEAT(ORELSE(imp_tactic, conj_tactic)) .. assumption_tactic
instead of
simple_tac = REPEAT(ORELSE(imp_tactic(), conj_tactic())) .. assumption_tactic()
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
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>
