-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
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
Add Region MVars #94
Conversation
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] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
@ChrisHughes24 The fact that |
I'm going to close this, since I believe development on this line of proof strategy has halted for the time being. |
Are people happy with this implementation of regions and region MVars before I work on it further?