-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 105
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
docs: update arch-split #771
Conversation
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.
Cool, thanks for updating the docs.
docs/arch-split.md
Outdated
FIXME: strictly speaking, there is no requirement that `Foo_AI_2` includes | ||
`Foo_AI_1`, but in practice we always do so (I guess because we want everything | ||
that got proved to be instantly available in case we need it in the proof | ||
chain). This would mean that the same fact gets exported multiple times? |
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.
I'm not entirely sure, but I think Isabelle is actually smart about that. We could double check, but the number of lemmas that would be instantiated twice is fairly small, so I would probably stick with a chain like this even if there was duplication.
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.
Yeah, I guess I should check.
- investigate how many lemmas of same name but different prefix this chain generates
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.
Investigation results: at most one duplicate is generated, so can confirm that Isabelle is smart about it as you said. My initial thought that maybe we can make all the locales export with the same prefix has been demonstrated to be impossible as well, so we can leave the status quo as is, and I should remove this FIXME. Maybe I should resolve it into a note in the doc? Would that be of use to anyone?
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.
If it can be expressed easily, it would be of use in avoiding us having the same thought and doing the same investigation some time in the future.
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.
Agreed, adding a note would be nice, I'm sure we'll have the same question again in a few years otherwise.
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.
Looks good to me, this reads nicer now and should avoid some confusion. I don't have any specific comments that haven't already been mentioned.
Some things were confusing, some changed over time. Hopefully this is an improvement. Particular notes: * extend_locale was unused and removed, replaced by the `_AI_2` multiple-locale strategy * the explicit global requalify_facts strategy was used but not documented Signed-off-by: Rafal Kolanski <[email protected]>
Some things were confusing, some changed over time. Hopefully this is an improvement.
Particular notes:
_AI_2
multiple-locale strategyReviewers:
_AI_asms
vs_AI_assms
is wonderfully inconsistent (1597 instances of the former, 506 of the latter): I'd like to pick one and then standardise