Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add Region MVars #94

Closed
wants to merge 49 commits into from
Closed

Add Region MVars #94

wants to merge 49 commits into from

Conversation

ChrisHughes24
Copy link
Collaborator

Are people happy with this implementation of regions and region MVars before I work on it further?

@ChrisHughes24 ChrisHughes24 added the question Further information is requested label Sep 21, 2023
ChrisHughes24 and others added 8 commits September 21, 2023 11:01
This reverts commit 946b665.
After running `simp_peephole[add, rgn]`, the proof state changes to:
--
application type mismatch
  HVector.denote
    (_ :
      ∀ (h : Ctxt.get? (Ctxt.snoc ?m.641463 ?m.641464) 0 = some ?m.641464),
        { val := 0, property := h } = Var.last ?m.641463 ?m.641464)
argument
  Var.zero_eq_last
has type
  ∀ (h : Ctxt.get? (Ctxt.snoc ?m.641463 ?m.641464) 0 = some ?m.641464),
    { val := 0, property := h } = Var.last ?m.641463 ?m.641464 : Prop
but is expected to have type
  HVector (fun t => Reg ?m.641456 t.fst t.snd) ?m.641461 : Type
--
intros a
-- | @chris: what's the correct lemma we need
-- to automate this proof?
simp[Ctxt.Valuation.snoc]
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What's the correct simp lemma instead of this? The proof state is:

Ctxt.Valuation.snoc ll✝ ((fun val => mv✝ [ExTy.nat] ExTy.nat 0 fun _ty _var => val)^[0] a)
    (Var.last [ExTy.nat] ExTy.nat) =
  a

@bollu
Copy link
Collaborator

bollu commented Nov 1, 2023

@ChrisHughes24 The fact that Valuation was changed to Goedel (Ctxt Ty) impacts code that was written in the meantime . Can we both have the old Valuation back, as well as a Goedel (Ctxt Ty) that evaluates to Valuation? Would that be a suitable compromise?

@bollu
Copy link
Collaborator

bollu commented Apr 17, 2024

I'm going to close this, since I believe development on this line of proof strategy has halted for the time being.

@bollu bollu closed this Apr 17, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants