In Lean 4, we will support the more general
`a + ·` ==> `fun x, a + x`
`· + b` ==> `fun x, x + b`
`· + ·` ==> `fun x y, x + y`
`f · y` ==> `fun x, f a y`
`g · · b` ==> `fun x y, g x y b`
Remark: the attribute actions used by the frontend are all in IO.
These actions access attributes by name, and need access to the IO.ref
that contains all registered attributes in the system.
The Scala/Clojure approach for persistent arrays works great with our
`reset/reuse`. We seem to be much more efficient than their
implementations because of `reset/reuse`. The new approach also seems
better than the old one implemented in the runtime, and has a few
advantages:
1- The reroot procedure used in the old approach required
synchronization for multi-threaded code, or we would need to perform
deep copies when sending `parray` objects between threads.
2- We don't need any runtime extension for the new approach.
3- The old approach used "trail lists" for undoing array updates.
This works well for bactracking search use cases, but it is bad
in use cases where we are simultaneously updating the persistent
arrays that have shared nodes.
This commit also removes Array.hmap.
Motivation: I wanted to use Array.hmap as an example in the paper, but
I found it would be too distracting to explain why we had `Array.hmap`
and `Array.map`.
cc @kha
@kha I added `qsort` for sorting environment extension entries, but I am
wondering if we could use it as a benchmark in our paper. It is a pure implementation; it is
fast; it implements the real quick sort algorithm with in-place updates if the
input array is not shared. If the array is shared it performs
a single copy and then switches to in-place updates.
@kha Trying again :)
I started using the prefix `f` for the `Fin` version (e.g., `fswap` and
`fswapAt`). So, it seemed natural to use the prefix `f` for the `Fin`
versions of `get` and `set`.
BTW, is it too crazy to use `a[i]` (without spaces) as notation for
`a.get i`? The constraint is to make sure `f a [i]` is not ambiguous.
That is, `f a[i]` is `f (a.get i)` and `f a [i]` is `f a (i::nil)`.
This is doable with the new parser.
Then, we could have `a[i]` as notation for `a.fget i` if `i` is a `Fin`,
and `a.get i` if `i` is `Nat`.
Similarly, `a[i := v]` would be notation for `a.fset i v` if `i` is
`Fin`, and `a.set i` if `i` is `Nat`.
It would also be awesome to have
```
let a[i] := v in
e
```
as notation for
```
let a := a[i := v] in
```
