I am trying to learn the Isar language (as of Isabelle 2020), and understand the note command. It seems to be a fundamental element of the language since a lot of the "Derived elements" are defined based on it.
I am not sure what it does in terms of the equivalents of English:
When it is necessary to note something? Aren't all the facts and/or assumptions known at this point of time automatically used, or do I have to explicit note certain facts before I can use them? If so, which ones do and do not need to be noted?
What are the things to be noted?
In the documentation Isar-ref.PDF, appendix A1.2 (pp319), under "Primitives", it says:
note a = b reconsider and declare facts
so it seems that an equality is to be noted.
Then, in A 1.3 in the same page, it says:
from a ≡ note a then
...
from this ≡ then
Here note doesn't seem to work on an equality. Also, there seems to be a endless loop.
from a = note a then = note a from this = note a note this then ...
(then expands to from and back to then).
then on the same page, there is:
also ~ note calculation = this
In English, the word "also" (and to some extent "note that") is optional. This is partly why it is so confusing to me here because it seems to be required, and I am not sure what it does. (I can understand other things such as assume as it moves some facts into the context.)
I've seen this and that used in a note command (e.g. in here Why are the following trivial self-equalities needed in the Isabelle/Isar proof?). This confused me a lot.
Is there a dictionary (English dictionary) style explanation somewhere in terms of what note does on the things (this, that, calculation etc.)?
,... and why is note required?
(The above appendix is the closest thing to a specification I could find.)
No one ever uses that in the way of the question. It hurts to look at that proof. The Isar ref is telling you how things are defined internally, but it is a terrible introduction to Isar. Don't read it. Forget everything you read there. Really.
The right way to start Isar is the prog-prove. Or slides used for teaching.
No facts are used implicitly. Isabelle only uses the facts that you tell it to use. That is why you need using or to pass theorems as argument to tactics.
The usual way to use note is to give a name to something that does not have a name yet, like:
case Suc
note meaningfull_name_one = this(1) and meaningfull_name_two = this(2)
or variants of that. This allows you to refer to theorems by name meaningfull_name_one instead of writing down the full expression. It is not necessary, but easier (also maintenance-wise). When you have 10 assumptions, you don't want to use prems(1) or Suc(8) or whatever.
As mentioned #ManuelEberl
note [simp] = ...
is useful to locally declare a theorem as simp.
Short summary:
this ::= last fact
note H = ... ::= name facts
that ::= name of the fact generate by obtain/obtain
Don't ever use calculation directly.
It is possible to abuse note like in question, by not giving a name to things and relying on its side effects. Don't do it.
One reason is that you can create new theorems with low-level operations such as [OF _]. To simplify reusing such a theorem, you can give it a name.
Related
I know there is macro-function, explained here, which allows you to check, but is it also possible in simply reading lisp source to sometimes infer of what you're looking at "that must be a macro"? (assuming of course you have never seen the function/macro before).
I'm fairly sure the answer is yes, but as this seems so fundamental, I thought worth asking, especially because any nuances on this may be valuable & interesting to know about.
In Paul Graham's ANSI Common Lisp, p70, he is describing how to use defstruct.
When I see (defstruct point x y), were I to know absolutely nothing about what defstruct was, this could just as well be a function.
But when I see
(defstruct polemic
(subject "foo")
(effect "bar"))
I know that must be a macro because (let's assume), I also know that subject and effect are undefined functions. (I know that because they error with undefined function when called 'at the top level'(?)) (if that's the right term).
If the two list arguments to defstruct above were quoted, it would not be so simple. Because they're not quoted, it must be a macro.
Is it as simple as that?
I've changed the field names slightly from those used on the book to make this question clearer.
Finally, Graham writes:
"We can specify default values for structure fields by enclosing the field name and a default expression in a list in the original definition"
What I'm noticing is that that's true but it is not a (quoted) list. Would any readers of this post have phrased the above sentence at all differently (given that macros haven't been introduced in the book yet (though I have a basic awareness of what they are)).
My feeling is it's not a "data list" those default expressions are enclosed in. (apologies for bad terminology) - seeking how rightly to conceptualise here.
In general, you're right: if there's some nesting inside the call and you are sure that the car's of the nested lists aren't functions - it's a macro.
Also, almost always, def-something and with-something are macros.
But there's no guarantee. The question is, what are you trying to accomplish? Some code walking/transformation or external processing (like in an editor). For the latter, you should keep in mind that full control is possible only if you perform code evaluation, although heuristics (like in Emacs) can take you pretty far. Or you just want to develop your intuition for faster code reading...
There is a set of conventions that identify quite cleary what forms are supposed to be macros, simply by mimicking the syntax of existing macros or special operators of CL.
For example, the following is a mix of various imaginary macros, but even without knowing their definition, the code shouldn't be too hard to figure out:
(defun/typed example ((id (integer 0 10)))
(with-connection (connection (connect id))
(do-events (event connection)
(event-case event
(:quit (&optional code) (return code))))))
The usual advice about macros is to avoid them if possible, so if you spot something that doesn't make sense as a lisp expression, it probably is, or is enclosed in, a macro.
(defstruct point x y)
[...] were I to know absolutely nothing about what defstruct was, this could just as well be a function.
There are various hints that this is not a function. First of all, the name starts with def. Then, if defstruct was a function, then point, x and y would all be evaluated before calling the function, and that means the code would be relying on global variables, even though they are not wearing earmuffs (e.g. *point*, *x*, *y*), and you probably won't find any definition for them in the preceding forms (or later in the same compilation unit). Also, if it was a function, the result would be discarded directly since it is not used (this is a toplevel form). That only indicates the probable presence of side-effects, but still, this would be unusual.
A top-level function with side-effects would look like this instead, with quoted data:
(register-struct 'point '(x y))
Finally, there are cases where you cannot easily guess if you are using a macro or a function:
(my-get object :slot)
This could be a function call, or you could have a macro that turns the above to (aref object 0) (assuming :slot is the zeroth slot in object, because all your objects are assumed to be of a certain custom type backed by a vector). You could also have compiler macros. In case of doubt, try to macroexpand it and look at the documentation.
In CL, we have many operators to check for equality that depend on the data type: =, string-equal, char=, then equal, eql and whatnot, so on for other data types, and the same for comparison operators (edit don't forget to answer about these please :) do we have generic <, > etc ? can we make them work for another object ?)
However the language has mechanisms to make them generic, for example generics (defgeneric, defmethod) as described in Practical Common Lisp. I imagine very well the same == operator that will work on integers, strings and characters, at least !
There have been work in that direction: https://common-lisp.net/project/cdr/document/8/cleqcmp.html
I see this as a major frustration, and even a wall, for beginners (of which I am), specially we who come from other languages like python where we use one equality operator (==) for every equality check (with the help of objects to make it so on custom types).
I read a blog post (not a monad tutorial, great serie) today pointing this. The guy moved to Clojure, for other reasons too of course, where there is one (or two?) operators.
So why is it so ? Is there any good reasons ? I can't even find a third party library, not even on CL21. edit: cl21 has this sort of generic operators, of course.
On other SO questions I read about performance. First, this won't apply to the little code I'll write so I don't care, and if you think so do you have figures to make your point ?
edit: despite the tone of the answers, it looks like there is not ;) We discuss in comments.
Kent Pitman has written an interesting article that tackles this subject: The Best of intentions, EQUAL rights — and wrongs — in Lisp.
And also note that EQUAL does work on integers, strings and characters. EQUALP also works for lists, vectors and hash tables an other Common Lisp types but objects… For some definition of work. The note at the end of the EQUALP page has a nice answer to your question:
Object equality is not a concept for which there is a uniquely determined correct algorithm. The appropriateness of an equality predicate can be judged only in the context of the needs of some particular program. Although these functions take any type of argument and their names sound very generic, equal and equalp are not appropriate for every application.
Specifically note that there is a trick in my last “works” definition.
A newer library adds generic interfaces to standard Common Lisp functions: https://github.com/alex-gutev/generic-cl/
GENERIC-CL provides a generic function wrapper over various functions in the Common Lisp standard, such as equality predicates and sequence operations. The goal of the wrapper is to provide a standard interface to common operations, such as testing for the equality of two objects, which is extensible to user-defined types.
It does this for equality, comparison, arithmetic, objects, iterators, sequences, hash-tables, math functions,…
So one can define his own + operator for example.
Yes we have! eq works with all values and it works all the time. It does not depend on the data type at all. It is exactly what you are looking for. It's like the is operator in python. It must be exactly what you were looking for? All the other ones agree with eq when it's t, however they tend to be t for totally different values that have various levels of similarities.
(defparameter *a* "this is a string")
(defparameter *b* *a*)
(defparameter *c* "this is a string")
(defparameter *d* "THIS IS A STRING")
All of these are equalp since they contain the same meaning. equalp is perhaps the sloppiest of equal functions. I don't think 2 and 2.0 are the same, but equalp does. In my mind 2 is 2 while 2.0 is somewhere between 1.95 and 2.04. you see they are not the same.
equal understands me. (equal *c* *d*) is definitely nil and that is good. However it returns t for (equal *a* *c*) as well. Both are arrays of characters and each character are the same value, however the two strings are not the same object. they just happen to look the same.
Notice I'm using string here for every single one of them. We have 4 equal functions that tells you if two values have something in common, but only eq tells you if they are the same.
None of these are type specific. They work on all types, however they are not generics since they were around long before that was added in the language. You could perhaps make 3-4 generic equal functions but would they really be any better than the ones we already have?
Fortunately CL21 introduces (more) generic operators, particularly for sequences it defines length, append, setf, first, rest, subseq, replace, take, drop, fill, take-while, drop-while, last, butlast, find-if, search, remove-if, delete-if, reverse, reduce, sort, split, join, remove-duplicates, every, some, map, sum (and some more). Unfortunately the doc isn't great, it's best to look at the sources. Those should work at least for strings, lists, vectors and define methods of the new abstract-sequence.
see also
https://github.com/cl21/cl21/wiki
https://lispcookbook.github.io/cl-cookbook/cl21.html
(Misleading title: it's only one of a plethora of inter-related similar questions below: these sound like asking for a full reference manual but keep in mind for this topic there is no reference manual other than the entirety of GHC's source-codes of its STG pipeline stage, and the collective accumulated experience of others/"insiders"..)
I'm exploring "transpiling" Haskell (from scratch for fun/learning, ignoring existing projects; target language/s similarly high-level / "already-fit-for-STG-machine" with existing GC + lambdas/func-values + closures) and so I'm trying to become ever more familiar with GHC's STG IR. Having repeatedly gone through the dozen-or-two online articles/videos of varying age, depth, detail that actually deal with the topic (plus the original paper, plus StgSyn.hs), and understanding many-perhaps-most basic principles, seeing -ddump-stged output still baffles me in various parts (I won't manually parse it but reuse GHC API's in-memory AST later on of course) --- mostly I think I'm stuck mapping my "roughly known" concepts to the "still-foreign" abbreviated/codified identifiers of that IR. If you know your way around STG a bit, mind looking at the following mini-sample to clarify a few open questions and help further solidify my (and future searchers') grasp?
From a most simple .hs module, I have -ddump-stged twice, first (on the left) with -O0 and then (on the right) with -O2, both captured in this diff.
Walking through everything def-by-def..
Lines L_|R5-11: so in O2, testX1 and testX2 seem to be global constants/literals for the integers 4 and 5 --- O0 doesn't have them. Curious!
Is Str=DmdType something about strictness? "Strictness is of type on-demand" or some such? But then a top-level/heap-ish/"global" constant literal can't be "lazy" can it.. (one of the things where I can't just casually Ctrl+F in StgSyn.hs --- it's not in there! which is odd in its own way, how come there's STG syntax not in StgSyn.hs)
Caf have a rough idea about constant-applicative-forms, but Unf=OtherCon? "Other constructor" (unboxed/native Type.S#-related?) ..
Line L6|R14: Surprised to still see type-class information in there (Num), is that "just info/annotation" or is this crucial for any of the built-in code-gens to set up some "dictionary" lookup machinery at runtime? (I'd sure hope by the late STG / pre-CMM stage that would be resolved and inlined already where possible at least in O2. After all GHC has also decided to type-default 4 and 5 to Integer). Generally speaking I understand STG is "untyped" other than denoting prim types, saturated cons, perhaps strings (looks like it later on at the bottom), so such "typeclass" annotations can only be.. I guess for readers to find their way around the ddump-ed *.stg. But correct me if not.
GblId probably just "global identifier" aka top-level CAF right? Arity clear.
Line L7|R18: now Str=DmdType for testX is, only in O2, followed by a freakish <S(LLC(C(S))LLLL),U(1*C1(C1(U)),A,1*C1(C1(U)),A,A,A,C(U))><L,U>! What's that, SKI calculus? ;D no seriously, LLC.. LLLL.. stack or other memory layout hints for CMM? Any idea? Must be some optimization, would like to understand which-and-how..
Line L8|R20: $dNum_sGM (left) and $dNum_sIx (right) have me a bit concerned, they don't seem to be "defined at the module level" here anywhere. Typeclass "method dispatch dictionary lookup" kind of thing? Would eg. CMM take this together with the above Num annotation to set things up? It always appears together with the input func arg.
The whole function "body" for both left and right can be seen here essentially as "3 lets with a lambda-ish form for 3 atoms, 2 of which are statically known literal-constants" --- I suppose this is standard and to be expected in the STG IR AST? For the first of these, funnily enough we could say that O0 has "inlined the global (what is testX1 or testX2 in O2) and O2 hasn't" (making the latter much shorter as that applies to both these constant literals).
I've only ever seen Occ=Once, what are the others and how to interpret? Once for one isn't even in StgSyn.hs..
Now LclId a counterpart to the earlier encountered GblId. That's denoting the scope of the identifier? Could it also be anything else, in this expression context? As in: if traversing the AST I roughly know how deep I am, I can ignore this since if I'm at the top-level it must be GblId and otherwise LclId? Hm.. maybe better take what STG gives me but then I need to be sure about the semantics and possibilities.. guys, using StgSyn.hs I have the wrong source file, right? Nothing on this in there either.. (always hopeful as its comments are quite well-done)
the rest is just metadata as string constants, OK.. oh wait, look at O2, there's Str=DmdType m1 and Str=DmdType m, what's the m/m1 about, another thing I don't see "defined anywhere at the module level" here? And it's not in O0..
still going strong? Merely a bonus question (for now), tell us about srt:SRT:[] ;)
Just a few tidbits - a full answer is quite beyond my knowledge.
The type of your function is
testX :: GHC.Num.Num a => a -> a
It’s compiled to a function with two arguments: a dictionary of the Num type class, and the actual argument.
The $d… names stand for dictionaries of type class instances. The <S(LLC(C(S))LLLL),… annotations are strictness information about the function arguments. They basically say which part of the argument will be used by your function and which not. Looks a bit weird here because it contains information about all the class instance members.
Some of this is explained here:
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Compiler/Demand
The str:STR: is the „Static reference table“, i.e. list of free variables of the expression - in your case, always [].
I have scribbled the term "retracting in OCaml" in a small space in my notebook and now I can't seem to recollect what it was about nor can I find anything about it on the internet.
Does this term really exist or is it my lecturer's own notation for some property of OCaml. My classmates also don't seem to remember what it was about so I just want to confirm if I was dreaming or not.
Another possible explanation: in math, a retraction is a left inverse of a morphism (see this definition). In particular, a parser can be seen as a retraction w.r.t. a given pretty-printer: start from an abstract syntax tree (AST) and pretty-print it, then parsing the resulting source code should yield the original AST (while the opposite is not necessarily true). It doesn't have much to do with OCaml per se but it is linked to an algebraic view (of compiling) which is quite common in functional programming.
Are there limitation to rebol parse function power ? Would it be capable of parsing the whole css2 / css 3 spec or will it encounter theorical impossibility to form some rules ?
Update after HostileFork answer: I mean in regexp I think it would be rather impossible, is parse much more powerfull ?
If yes does it mean it would be possible to build a browser in rebol vid compatible with html5 ?
Your question of "are there limits" is slippery. I'll try and give you "the answer" instead of just "yeah, sure"...which would be more expedient albeit not too educational. :)
Consider the following snippet. It captures the parser position into x, and then runs what's in parentheses in the DO dialect. That code re-sets x to the tail of the input if the css-parser function succeeds, or to the head of the input if the function fails. Finally, it sets the parse position to the current x. And as we know, PARSE returns true only if we're at the end of the input series when the rules finish...
parse my-css [x: (x: either css-parser x [tail x] [head x]]) :x]
That's valid parse dialect code AND it returns true if (and only if) the css-parser function succeeds. Therefore, if you can write a css parser in Rebol at all, you can write it "in the parse dialect".
(This leads to the question of it's possible to solve a given computing problem in a Rebol function. Thankfully, computer scientists don't have to re-answer that question each time a new language pops up. You can compute anything that be computed by a Turing machine, and nothing that can't be...and check out Alan Turing's own words, in layman's terms. CSS parsing isn't precisely the halting problem, so yeah... it can be done.)
I'll take a stab at re-framing your question:
"Is it possible to write a block of rules (which do not use PAREN!, SET-WORD!, or GET-WORD! constructs) that can be passed into the PARSE function and return TRUE on any valid CSS file and FALSE on any malformed one?"
The formal specification of what makes for good or bad CSS is put out by the W3C:
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/grammar.html
But notice that even there, it's not all cut-and-dry. Their "formal" specification of color constants can't rule out #abcd, they had to write about it in the comments, in English:
/*
* There is a constraint on the color that it must
* have either 3 or 6 hex-digits (i.e., [0-9a-fA-F])
* after the "#"; e.g., "#000" is OK, but "#abcd" is not.
*/
hexcolor
: HASH S*
;
This leads us to ask if we would forgive Rebol for not being able to do that kind of recognition after we've tied PARSE's hands by taking away PAREN!/GET-WORD!/SET-WORD! (I just want to point out this kind of issue in light of your question).
As part of the Rebol 3 parse project there's been a write-up of the Theory of Parse...
The PARSE dialect is an enhanced member of the family of Top-down parsing languages (TDPL family) including the Top-down parsing language (TDPL), the Generalized top-down parsing language (GTDPL) and the Parsing expression grammar (PEG) and uses the same "ordered choice" parsing method as the other members of the family.
As pointed out in the link above, being a member of this class makes Rebol's PARSE strictly more powerful than both regular expressions and LL parsers. I assume it's more powerful than LL(k) and LL* parsers as well, but it has been a while since I've studied this stuff and I wouldn't bet my life on it. :)
You don't really need to understand what all that means in order to make use of it to answer your "can it be done" question. Since people have claimed to parse CSS with ANTLR, and ANTLR is an LL* parser, then I'd say Rebol can do it. PAREN! is the ace-in-the-hole which lets you do "anything" if you hit a wall, but it's a slippery slope to start using it too carelessly.
Should be perfectly capable of parsing the spec, should you have motive and patience to write the rules. It'd be a bit more involved than, say, a JSON parser, but it'd be the same idea.