@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
Remark: this commit introduce memory leaks, but this is just an
intermediate step to get modification objects in Lean.
Recall that, we will eventually remove modification objects from Lean.
@kha I found yet another bug in the specializer code :(
The bug is related to the previous bug fix where we try avoid
duplication of work by lambda abstracting let-variables.
We knew this could introduce type errors, but I thought it would only
happen in very complicated programs that make a heavy use of dependent
types. Actually, this is not the case. I just found an instance when
I was playing with the new parser.
We were getting assertion violations when compiling corelib in debug
mode. There were two problems:
1- We were not capturing free variables occurring in types.
2- A paremeter could depend on a free variable associated with a let-declaration.
@kha: I changed the specialization candidate selection procedure.
Now, instances are not considered for specializations unless we mark
them with `[specialize]`. The idea is that an instance application is
morally just creating the "dictionary" for invoking a polymorphic
function.
@kha I had to add this attribute because the specializer was generated
many specialization candidates for functions that take `[has_tokens ...]`
as an argument. Moreover, these candidates had a lot of
dependencies. I am trying to workaround this issue by marking the
instances with the new attribute `[nospecialize]`.
I did not mark instances created by `[derive]`. It is quite tedious to
do it.
BTW, when I was investigating the problem I stumbled at `node.view`.
Its type is:
```
node.view :
Π {α : Type} {m : Type → Type} [_inst_1 : monad m] [_inst_2 : monad_except (parsec.message syntax) m]
[_inst_3 : monad_parsec syntax m] [_inst_4 : alternative m] (k : syntax_node_kind) (rs : list (m syntax))
[i : @has_view syntax_node_kind k α], @has_view (m syntax) (@node m _inst_1 _inst_2 _inst_3 _inst_4 k rs) α
```
This looks wrong: the view depends on `[monad_parsec syntax m]`
We should also make sure definitions do not have unnecessary type
class instances. Otherwise, we will put additional stress on the code
specializer. One option is to change the frontend and filter unused
instances.
