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`
@kha It will be awesome to automate the following idiom with a macro :)
```
def defIndent := 4
def getIndent (o : Options) : Nat := o.get `format.indent defIndent
@[init] def indentOption : IO Unit :=
registerOption `format.indent { defValue := defIndent, group := "format", descr := "indentation" }
```
@kha I was working in the new declaration type and using tasks there.
Since we don't have tasks yet in Lean, I decided to start refactoring
the `thunk` type. I defined it as:
```
-- TODO(Leo): mark as opaque, it is implemented by the new runtime
structure thunk (α : Type u) : Type u :=
(fn : unit → α)
def thunk.pure {α : Type u} (a : α) : thunk α :=
⟨λ _, a⟩
def thunk.get {α : Type u} (t : thunk α) : α :=
t.fn ()
```
The idea is to use the runtime primitives to implement them.
Then, I realized the support for `thunk`s in the elaborator are quite
hacky. Given `f x`, if `f`'s domain has type `thunk A`, we elaborate
`f x` as `f (fun _, x)` even if `x` has type `thunk A`.
This is quite bad, for example, suppose we have
```
def f (x : thunk A) := ...
```
Then, the following definition is type incorrect.
```
def g (x : thunk A) := f x
```
and we are forced to write
```
def g (x : thunk A) := f (x ())
```
The term `f (x ())` will be elaborated as `f (fun _, x ())` and an
unnecessary closure is created at runtime.
This mechanism inherited from Lean 3 is also incompatible with the
new thunk definition. Given `x : thunk A`, I want to write `x.get`
to retrieve the value instead of `x ()` as in Lean 3.
However, `x.get` expands into the nonsensical `(fun _, x).get`.
So, I decided to view the mapping `A` to `thunk A` as a "coercion".
I used double quotes, because it is a macro instead of a function.
If it were a coercion, then we would be using `thunk.pure` to coerce
values but this is not we want most of the time.
For example, given `f : thunk A -> B` and a term `t : A`, when we write
`f t`, we want it to be converted into `f (fun _, t)` instead of
`f (thunk.pure t)` which would eagerly compute `t`. The transformation
`t` into `fun _, t` is syntactic.
We cannot implement it using type classes. I implemented it as
a hard-coded extra case like the one from `Prop` to `bool`.
We can also add a coercion from `thunk A` to `A` to avoid the `.get`.
That being said, I had a few breakages in the code base since we only
use coercions when the given and expected type do not contain
metavariables.
Motivation: in 64-bit machines, we can store boxed uint32 values as a
tagged pointer. In 32-bit machines, we need to allocated an object (like
Haskell) to store the uint32 value. So, the generated bytecode is quite
different in each platform.
This change also allow us to simplify the IR. Example: we don't need the
type `sizet` anymore.
Impact: To be able to bootstrap in both platforms,
we will have to store two versions of the generated code: 32 and 64
versions. In principle, we only need to store the 64-bit version,
and use cross-compilation to build the 32-bit version.
