The optimization was incorrect if the term indirectly contained a metavariable.
It could happen if the term contained a free variable that was assigned in the context to a term containing a metavariable.
This commit also adds a new test that exposes the problem.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
Before this commit, the elaborator was solving constraints of the form
ctx |- (?m x) == (f x)
as
?m <- (fun x : A, f x) where A is the domain of f.
In our kernel, the terms f and (fun x, f x) are not definitionally equal.
So, the solution above is not the only one. Another possible solution is
?m <- f
Depending of the circumstances we want ?m <- (fun x : A, f x) OR ?m <- f.
For example, when Lean is elaborating the eta-theorem in kernel.lean, the first solution should be used:
?m <- (fun x : A, f x)
When we are elaborating the axiom_of_choice theorem, we need to use the second one:
?m <- f
Of course, we can always provide the parameters explicitly and bypass the elaborator.
However, this goes against the idea that the elaborator can do mechanical steps for us.
This commit addresses this issue by creating a case-split
?m <- (fun x : A, f x)
OR
?m <- f
Another solution is to implement eta-expanded normal forms in the Kernel.
With this change, we were able to cleanup the following "hacks" in kernel.lean:
@eps_ax A (nonempty_ex_intro H) P w Hw
@axiom_of_choice A B P H
where we had to explicitly provided the implicit arguments
This commit also improves the imitation step for Pi-terms that are actually arrows.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
The elaborator was failing in the following higher-order constraint
ctx |- (?M a) = (?M b)
This constraint has solution, but the missing condition was making the elaborator to reduce this problem to
ctx |- a = b
That does not have a solution.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
The universe constraint manager is more flexible now.
We don't need to start with a huge universe U >= 512.
We can start small, and increase it on demand.
If module mod1 needs it, it can always add
universe U >= 3
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
The elaborator was not handling correctly constraints of the form
ctx |- ?m << (Pi x : A, B)
and
ctx |- (Pi x : A, B) << ?m
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
This commit affects different modules.
I used the following approach:
1- I store the metavariable environment at unification_failure_justifications. The idea is to capture the set of instantiated metavariables at the time of failure.
2- I added a remove_detail function. It removes propagation steps from the justification tree object. I also remove the backtracking search space associated with higher-order unificiation. I keep only the search related to case-splits due to coercions and overloads.
3- I use the metavariable environment captured at step 1 when pretty printing the justification of an elaborator_exception.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
This modification improves the effectiveness of the process_metavar_inst procedure in the Lean elaborator.
For example, suppose we have the constraint
ctx |- ?M1[inst:0 ?M2] == a
If ?M1 and ?M2 are unassigned, then we have to consider the two possible solutions:
?M1 == a
or
?M1 == #0 and ?M2 == a
On the other hand, if ?M2 is assigned to b, then we can ignore the second case.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
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>
The elaborator was failing in the following scenario:
- Failing constraint of the form
ctx |- ?m1 =:= ?m2
where
?m2 is assigned to ?m1,
and ?m1 is unassigned.
has_metavar(?m2, ?m1) returns true, and a cycle is incorrectly reported.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
The elaborator was missing solutions because of the missing condition at is_simple_ho_match.
This commit also adds a new test that exposes the problem.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
This commits also adds a new unit test that demonstrates non-termination due to this kind of constraint.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
The "quota" hack used before this commit was inefficient, and too hackish.
This commit uses two lists of constraints: active and delayed.
The delayed constraints are only processed when there are no active constraints.
We use a simple index to quickly find which delayed constraints have assigned metavariables.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
checkpoint
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
The idea is to catch the inconsistency in constraints such as:
ctx |- ?m[inst:0 v] == fun x, ?m a x
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
The modifications started at commit 1852c86948 made a big difference. For example, before these changes test tests/lean/implicit7.lean generated complicated constraints such as:
[x : Type; a : ?M::29[inst:1 ?M::0[lift:0:1]] x] ⊢ Pi B : Type, (Pi _ : x, (Pi _ : (?M::35[inst:0 #0, inst:1 #2, inst:2 #4, inst:3 #6, inst:5 #5, inst:6 #7, inst:7 #9, inst:9 #9, inst:10 #11, inst:13 ?M::0[lift:0:13]] x a B _), (?M::36[inst:1 #1, inst:2 #3, inst:3 #5, inst:4 #7, inst:6 #6, inst:7 #8, inst:8 #10, inst:10 #10, inst:11 #12, inst:14 ?M::0[lift:0:14]] x a B _ _))) ≈
?M::22 x a
After the changes, only very simple constraints are generated. The most complicated one is:
[] ⊢ Pi a : ?M::0, (Pi B : Type, (Pi _ : ?M::0, (Pi _ : B, ?M::0))) ≈ Pi x : ?M::17, ?M::18
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
This commit also simplifies the method check_pi in the type_checker and type_inferer.
It also fixes process_meta_app in the elaborator.
The problem was in the method process_meta_app and process_meta_inst.
They were processing convertability constrains as equality constraints.
For example, process_meta_app would handle
ctx |- Type << ?f b
as
ctx |- Type =:= ?f b
This is not correct because a ?f that returns (Type U) for b satisfies the first but not the second.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
This modification was motivated by a bug exposed by tst17 at tests/kernel/type_checker.
metavar_env is now a smart point to metavar_env_cell.
ro_metavar_env is a read-only smart pointer. It is useful to make sure we are using proof_state correctly.
example showing that the approach for caching metavar_env is broken in the type_checker
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
The environment object is a "smart-pointer".
Before this commit, the use of "const &" for environment objects was broken.
For example, suppose we have a function f that should not modify the input environment.
Before this commit, its signature would be
void f(environment const & env)
This is broken, f's implementation can easilty convert it to a read-write pointer by using
the copy constructor.
environment rw_env(env);
Now, f can use rw_env to update env.
To fix this issue, we now have ro_environment. It is a shared *const* pointer.
We can convert an environment into a ro_environment, but not the other way around.
ro_environment can also be seen as a form of documentation.
For example, now it is clear that type_inferer is not updating the environment, since its constructor takes a ro_environment.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
Lean was spending 17% on the runtime "throwing exceptions" in the test tests/lean/implicit7.lean
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
