This PR adds the `nondep` field of `Expr.letE` to the C++ data model.
Previously this field has been unused, and in followup PRs the
elaborator will use it to encode `have` expressions (non-dependent
`let`s). The kernel does not verify that `nondep` is correctly applied
during typechecking. The `letE` delaborator now prints `have`s when
`nondep` is true, though `have` still elaborates as `letFun` for now.
Breaking change: `Expr.updateLet!` is renamed to `Expr.updateLetE!`.
This PR also fixes a bug in `Expr.letFun?` and `Expr.letFunAppArgs?`
when the body is not a lambda. In any case, these functions will be
removed once the `Expr.letE (nondep := true)` encoding of `have`
expressions is complete.
On issue #906, `simp` spends a lot of time checking the cache. This
process is time consuming and doesn't allocate memory. Before this
commit, it would take a long time to get the "maximum number of
heartbeats" error message on the example included in this issue.
Closes#906
@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
`proj_sname` is not just for enabling better pretty printing. It is
necessary in the compiler when type information is lost, and we can't
infer the type of a `proj`-term argument (field `proj_expr`).
@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 need this feature for:
1) Defining nonlinear search patterns. Example: (?m <= ?m + 1)
2) Preprocessing recursive equations and support the pattern
refinement approach used in Agda. Example: in Agda, they accept
```
def append {A : Type} : Π (m n : nat), Vec A m -> Vec A n -> Vec A (m + n)
| m n nil ys := ys
| m n (cons m' x xs) ys := cons x (append m' n xs ys)
```
These equations have to be refined. For example, `m` has to be
replaced with `0` (in the first equation), and `succ m'` in the
second. To implement this kind of refinement, we need to convert
the pattern variables (local constants) into metavariables during
elaboration. Then, the unassigned metavariables become local constants
again. This preprocessing step will fix some of the issues on #1594.
To completely fix#1594, we will need yet another preprocessing step
which will implement "complete transition" used in the equation
compiler before we start elim_match.cpp
This is the correct fix for the id declaration pretty printing
discrepancy reported by Daniel.
TODO: decide whether we need another eq-mode where names are ignored.
For example, in blast, it makes sense to increase sharing by ignoring
binder names.
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>
