@Kha @dselsam:
This hack was preventing us from making `Expr` a "real" Lean type.
This was bad for a few reasons:
- It was hard to extend/modify `Expr` in Lean since we would also have
to modify the C++ code that creates the `Expr` objects with the hidden
fields.
- `Expr.lam` and `Expr.forallE` were not following the Lean layout
standard where we sort fields by size. @Kha: recall we used that to
avoid a UB. The issue with `Expr.lam` and `Expr.forallE` is that they
have a "visible" field (`BinderInfo`), which is smaller than
hidden fields such as hash code.
- `Expr.fvar` had only one field at `Expr.lean,` but four behind the
scenes.
I added a new constructor `Local` that is only accessible from C++.
It is only used in legacy code we inherited from Lean2.
We will eventually delete it.
This refactoring was quite painful since many parts of the codebase
were mixing the new `Expr.fvar` with the old `Expr.local`.
I doubt I would be able to do it without the new staging framework
@Kha built.
BTW, some of the patches are horrible. I didn't care much since we
are going to deleted the super ugly files. That being said,
you should expect new weird bevaior due to `Expr.fvar` vs `Expr.local`.
Next step: use the new `ExprCachedData` to make all `Expr` hidden visibles
accessible from Lean.
checkpoint
@kha The runtime folder includes what is needed to link a
standalone Lean program. It is still contains some unnecessary files.
We will be able to remove them after we release Lean4.
This field was originally added to create hashtables based on pointer
equality. We don't use them anymore, and the caches based on
m_hash_alloc can be implemented using m_hash without any performance
impact. This commit also fixes two places where `expr_set` was used
instead of `expr_struct_set`.
This commit is also important for the Lean4 plans where `expr` will
be implemented in Lean, and fields like `m_hash_alloc` would require us
to track state.
We simulate it in the following way:
1- An opaque 'let'-expressions (let x : t := v in b) is encoded as
((fun (x : t), b) v)
We also use a macro (let-macro) to mark this pattern.
Thus, the pretty-printer knows how to display it correctly.
2- Transparent 'let'-expressions are eagerly expanded by the parser.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
Before this commit, we "stored" macro arguments using applications.
This representation had some issues. Suppose we use [m a] to denote a macro
application. In the old representation, ([m a] b) and [m a b] would have
the same representation. Another problem is that some procedures (e.g., type inference)
would not have a clean implementation.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
