Iris issueshttps://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues2020-12-23T10:27:19Zhttps://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues/358Add a logic-level version of gmap_view2020-12-23T10:27:19ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.orgAdd a logic-level version of gmap_viewWe now have `gmap_view` on the RA level, but this library seems useful enough that we want to have a logic-level wrapper as well, with notations for "owning a location in a ghost heap", so to speak. Perennial has `auth_map` (and some predecessors) for this and it is used all over the place.We now have `gmap_view` on the RA level, but this library seems useful enough that we want to have a logic-level wrapper as well, with notations for "owning a location in a ghost heap", so to speak. Perennial has `auth_map` (and some predecessors) for this and it is used all over the place.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues/357Cancelable locks2020-10-21T11:00:44ZRobbertCancelable locksIt would be really useful to have a version of cancelable locks, where the `is_lock` predicate is equipped with a fraction. That way, we could have a couple of things:
1. A Hoare triple for the physical free operation `{{ is_lock lk 1 R }} free lk {{ R }}`
2. A rule `is_lock lk 1 R ==∗ ▷ R ∗ (▷ R' ==∗ is_lock lk 1 R')` that allows a "strong update" of the payload of the lock.
Now that we have the discardable fractional permissions, we could use those to get back the ordinary lock-spec by picking the fraction to be `DfracDiscarded`.
To implement this, we probably first want to generalize cancelable invariants, by a.) adding a discardable fraction b.) adding a rule for changing the proposition in case one owns the entire fraction.
Questions:
- For locks, do we want to equip `is_lock` with a fraction, or do we want to add a token `lock_own` (which would be timeless).
- If we equip `is_lock` with a fraction, we won't break backwards compatibility that much. One just needs to add `DfracDiscarded` everywhere. If we have a token for the fraction, backwards compatibility is a bigger issue. We could of course define `is_lock ... := new_is_lock ... ∗ lock_own DfracDiscarded` or something like that.
Any thoughts?It would be really useful to have a version of cancelable locks, where the `is_lock` predicate is equipped with a fraction. That way, we could have a couple of things:
1. A Hoare triple for the physical free operation `{{ is_lock lk 1 R }} free lk {{ R }}`
2. A rule `is_lock lk 1 R ==∗ ▷ R ∗ (▷ R' ==∗ is_lock lk 1 R')` that allows a "strong update" of the payload of the lock.
Now that we have the discardable fractional permissions, we could use those to get back the ordinary lock-spec by picking the fraction to be `DfracDiscarded`.
To implement this, we probably first want to generalize cancelable invariants, by a.) adding a discardable fraction b.) adding a rule for changing the proposition in case one owns the entire fraction.
Questions:
- For locks, do we want to equip `is_lock` with a fraction, or do we want to add a token `lock_own` (which would be timeless).
- If we equip `is_lock` with a fraction, we won't break backwards compatibility that much. One just needs to add `DfracDiscarded` everywhere. If we have a token for the fraction, backwards compatibility is a bigger issue. We could of course define `is_lock ... := new_is_lock ... ∗ lock_own DfracDiscarded` or something like that.
Any thoughts?https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues/354Discardable camera improvements2020-10-09T13:50:33ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.orgDiscardable camera improvements## Generalization
I think the variant of `dfrac` that I implemented with https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/merge_requests/531 can be generalized to a "discardable-anything":
```coq
Inductive discardable (A: cmraT) :=
| DOwn : A → dfrac
| DDiscarded : dfrac
| DBoth : A → dfrac.
```
with validity something like
```coq
Instance discardable_valid (A: cmraT) : Valid (discardable A) := λ x,
match x with
| DOwn q => ✓ q
| DDiscarded => True
| DBoth q => exists p, ✓ (q ⋅ p)
end%Qc.
```
I think this should work... what I am not sure about is if this is useful.^^
## old [discarded](https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues/354#note_57686) idea: `option Qp`
After https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/merge_requests/531, the public interface of `dfrac` can basically be described via a smart constructor that takes `option Qp` -- in fact I am adding such a notation in https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/merge_requests/486. We can probably rephrase all the existing lemmas in terms of that single constructor, and @robbertkrebbers agrees that that would make a better interface.
Cc @simonfv @tchajed## Generalization
I think the variant of `dfrac` that I implemented with https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/merge_requests/531 can be generalized to a "discardable-anything":
```coq
Inductive discardable (A: cmraT) :=
| DOwn : A → dfrac
| DDiscarded : dfrac
| DBoth : A → dfrac.
```
with validity something like
```coq
Instance discardable_valid (A: cmraT) : Valid (discardable A) := λ x,
match x with
| DOwn q => ✓ q
| DDiscarded => True
| DBoth q => exists p, ✓ (q ⋅ p)
end%Qc.
```
I think this should work... what I am not sure about is if this is useful.^^
## old [discarded](https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues/354#note_57686) idea: `option Qp`
After https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/merge_requests/531, the public interface of `dfrac` can basically be described via a smart constructor that takes `option Qp` -- in fact I am adding such a notation in https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/merge_requests/486. We can probably rephrase all the existing lemmas in terms of that single constructor, and @robbertkrebbers agrees that that would make a better interface.
Cc @simonfv @tchajedhttps://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues/352Tracking issue for records2020-12-05T16:08:12ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.orgTracking issue for records@tchajed, @robbertkrebbers and me are discussing ideas for equipping Iris with support for "named records", based on a first implementation of sch a scheme by Tej for Perennial. This is a tracking issue where we track which pieces of work depend on what, and what needs to be done next. Also see the appropriately labeled [issues](https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues?label_name%5B%5D=T-records) and [merge requests](https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/merge_requests?label_name%5B%5D=T-records).
The current status is that some unforeseen issues came up after merging https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/merge_requests/479.@tchajed, @robbertkrebbers and me are discussing ideas for equipping Iris with support for "named records", based on a first implementation of sch a scheme by Tej for Perennial. This is a tracking issue where we track which pieces of work depend on what, and what needs to be done next. Also see the appropriately labeled [issues](https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues?label_name%5B%5D=T-records) and [merge requests](https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/merge_requests?label_name%5B%5D=T-records).
The current status is that some unforeseen issues came up after merging https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/merge_requests/479.Iris 3.4https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues/351Decouple framing and IntoSep2020-09-29T13:39:42ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.orgDecouple framing and IntoSepCurrently, `IntoSep` does a few things that can be rather expensive, like `AsFractional` conversion. This is very useful for destruct patterns, but `IntoSep` is also used for framing, and there we want to be cheap. @tchajed already disabled some `IntoSep` instances in Perennial for this reason.
It might make sense to have a separate IntoSep for framing that is more optimized for performance and, for example, does not try to exploit fractional things.
This is somewhat similar to https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues/186.
To avoid making a mess, probably we should figure out https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues/139 first.Currently, `IntoSep` does a few things that can be rather expensive, like `AsFractional` conversion. This is very useful for destruct patterns, but `IntoSep` is also used for framing, and there we want to be cheap. @tchajed already disabled some `IntoSep` instances in Perennial for this reason.
It might make sense to have a separate IntoSep for framing that is more optimized for performance and, for example, does not try to exploit fractional things.
This is somewhat similar to https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues/186.
To avoid making a mess, probably we should figure out https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues/139 first.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues/349Parameterize WP (and more) by the notion of fancy update2020-09-22T07:47:46ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.orgParameterize WP (and more) by the notion of fancy updateFor Perennial, @jtassaro developed a notion of "fancy updates" that satisfies all the laws we have in Iris, plus way more. Unfortunately this means we cannot directly use anything from `base_logc/lib` and above, even though all these proofs do go through unchanged.
This change is likely not canonical enough to be upstreamable, and I see no way to make our notion of fancy updates itself general enough that @jtassaro's update are an instance of them. The design space is very wide open here.
It would thus be useful if we could parameterize the definition of WP by the notion of fancy update, and similar for some of the things in `base_logic/lib` -- everything that mentions fancy updates, basically (or at least anything useful; I don't think it is worth doing this with STS and auth). Maybe some things can be changed to use basic updates instead of fancy updates, which would avoid the need for parameterization.
Even semantic invariants themselves can be defined generally for any fancy update; the only thing that each update would need to prove is the allocation lemma(s).
@robbertkrebbers what do you think?For Perennial, @jtassaro developed a notion of "fancy updates" that satisfies all the laws we have in Iris, plus way more. Unfortunately this means we cannot directly use anything from `base_logc/lib` and above, even though all these proofs do go through unchanged.
This change is likely not canonical enough to be upstreamable, and I see no way to make our notion of fancy updates itself general enough that @jtassaro's update are an instance of them. The design space is very wide open here.
It would thus be useful if we could parameterize the definition of WP by the notion of fancy update, and similar for some of the things in `base_logic/lib` -- everything that mentions fancy updates, basically (or at least anything useful; I don't think it is worth doing this with STS and auth). Maybe some things can be changed to use basic updates instead of fancy updates, which would avoid the need for parameterization.
Even semantic invariants themselves can be defined generally for any fancy update; the only thing that each update would need to prove is the allocation lemma(s).
@robbertkrebbers what do you think?https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues/348Always enabled invariants2020-09-30T19:14:58ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.orgAlways enabled invariants@jtassaro has a fork of Iris with some interesting features that we might want to copy. In particular, for Perennial he added "always-enabled invariants", which have no mask, can always be opened, but cannot be kept open. The accessor lemma is (roughly):
```
Lemma ae_inv_acc_bupd E P Q :
ae_inv P -∗
(▷ P ==∗ ◇ (▷ P ∗ Q)) -∗
|={E}=> Q.
```
This seems like it could be useful beyond Perennial. In particular, this forms a layer of abstraction *beneath* the invariants that we have: `ownI` (underlying `inv`) can be defined in terms of `ae_inv` with something like
```
ownI i Q := Q ∗ ownD {[i]} ∨ ownE {[i]})
```
(That's not how Joe defined them, but I am pretty sure it could be done.)@jtassaro has a fork of Iris with some interesting features that we might want to copy. In particular, for Perennial he added "always-enabled invariants", which have no mask, can always be opened, but cannot be kept open. The accessor lemma is (roughly):
```
Lemma ae_inv_acc_bupd E P Q :
ae_inv P -∗
(▷ P ==∗ ◇ (▷ P ∗ Q)) -∗
|={E}=> Q.
```
This seems like it could be useful beyond Perennial. In particular, this forms a layer of abstraction *beneath* the invariants that we have: `ownI` (underlying `inv`) can be defined in terms of `ae_inv` with something like
```
ownI i Q := Q ∗ ownD {[i]} ∨ ownE {[i]})
```
(That's not how Joe defined them, but I am pretty sure it could be done.)https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues/347"solve_inG" is very slow for larger RA combinators2020-10-16T12:07:26ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.org"solve_inG" is very slow for larger RA combinatorsIn his Iris fork, @jtassaro has a [rather large RA](https://github.com/jtassarotti/iris-inv-hierarchy/blob/0ecbb628ff5c49826873f800a2127e5bfcfb48ae/theories/base_logic/lib/wsat.v#L43) that completely explodes `solve_inG`. Before https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/merge_requests/498, it took around 15s, and then `Qed` took another 15s.
Since !498, they just don't terminate any more. I can make the proof itself go through by adding a `simpl in *` in `solve_inG` (before [this `intros`](https://github.com/jtassarotti/iris-inv-hierarchy/blob/0ecbb628ff5c49826873f800a2127e5bfcfb48ae/theories/base_logic/lib/own.v#L45)), but then `Qed` still takes forever. To make `Qed` work I added some awful hack that seemingly successfully guides Coq towards using the right reduction strategy for `Qed`.
I am not sure what we can do here, besides entirely sealing functors and thus making them non-computational (so we'd have to prove unfolding lemmas about them all, and somehow use them in `solve_inG`).In his Iris fork, @jtassaro has a [rather large RA](https://github.com/jtassarotti/iris-inv-hierarchy/blob/0ecbb628ff5c49826873f800a2127e5bfcfb48ae/theories/base_logic/lib/wsat.v#L43) that completely explodes `solve_inG`. Before https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/merge_requests/498, it took around 15s, and then `Qed` took another 15s.
Since !498, they just don't terminate any more. I can make the proof itself go through by adding a `simpl in *` in `solve_inG` (before [this `intros`](https://github.com/jtassarotti/iris-inv-hierarchy/blob/0ecbb628ff5c49826873f800a2127e5bfcfb48ae/theories/base_logic/lib/own.v#L45)), but then `Qed` still takes forever. To make `Qed` work I added some awful hack that seemingly successfully guides Coq towards using the right reduction strategy for `Qed`.
I am not sure what we can do here, besides entirely sealing functors and thus making them non-computational (so we'd have to prove unfolding lemmas about them all, and somehow use them in `solve_inG`).https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues/343Make CI fail when proofs depend on auto-generated names2020-10-07T13:11:04ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.orgMake CI fail when proofs depend on auto-generated namesWe already did it in std++, now [that this is fixed](https://github.com/coq/coq/issues/12944) it is time to do the same in Iris: make CI ensure that we do not use auto-generated names.
I plan to work on this when I find some time, but if someone beats me to it and fixes some proof scripts, that is not a problem at all. ;)We already did it in std++, now [that this is fixed](https://github.com/coq/coq/issues/12944) it is time to do the same in Iris: make CI ensure that we do not use auto-generated names.
I plan to work on this when I find some time, but if someone beats me to it and fixes some proof scripts, that is not a problem at all. ;)https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues/341Coecisting fractional and persistent read-only ownership2020-08-25T09:34:48ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.orgCoecisting fractional and persistent read-only ownershipAs part of https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/merge_requests/486, @tchajed and @simonfv raised the point that sometimes it would be useful to convert ownership of *some fraction* of a map element to persistent read-only ownership. Right now, our encoding through `frac * agree T + agree T` (or equivalently `(frac + ()) * agree T`) requires ownership of the full fraction for that move.
I think such a construction is possible, but it requires https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues/257. Then we could relate an authoritative map to a fragment that's more like `option (frac * agree T) * option (agree T)`, and ensure that the second `option` is `None` unless the sum of all fraction fragments is less than 1.As part of https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/merge_requests/486, @tchajed and @simonfv raised the point that sometimes it would be useful to convert ownership of *some fraction* of a map element to persistent read-only ownership. Right now, our encoding through `frac * agree T + agree T` (or equivalently `(frac + ()) * agree T`) requires ownership of the full fraction for that move.
I think such a construction is possible, but it requires https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues/257. Then we could relate an authoritative map to a fragment that's more like `option (frac * agree T) * option (agree T)`, and ensure that the second `option` is `None` unless the sum of all fraction fragments is less than 1.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues/340Polymorphic equality for HeapLang2020-08-22T19:06:03ZDan FruminPolymorphic equality for HeapLangIt would be nice to have polymorphic equality testing, like in OCaml or StandardML.
Current equality testing is used both for CmpXchng and for `=`, so it only operates on unboxed values.It would be nice to have polymorphic equality testing, like in OCaml or StandardML.
Current equality testing is used both for CmpXchng and for `=`, so it only operates on unboxed values.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues/339Add "reservation map" CMRA2020-09-09T12:29:51ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.orgAdd "reservation map" CMRAFor the Rust GhostCell paper, we designed and @pythonsq implemented a "reservation map" RA that is useful when one needs to synchronously reserve two equal names in two different abstractions.
1. The reservation map lets you reserve an infinite amount of names in a first frame-preserving update.
2. Next you can use that infinite set to reserve a particular name in some other abstraction, with the usual "strong allocation" lemma that picks the new name from any infinite set.
3. Finally you can take that one name you got, and since it is in the infinite set you reserved, you may now own that name in the reservation map after a second frame-preserving update.
The code for this is at https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/FP/ghostcell/-/blob/master/theories/typing/lib/gsingleton.v. @pythonsq do you think you will have time to clean this up and make it into an MR?For the Rust GhostCell paper, we designed and @pythonsq implemented a "reservation map" RA that is useful when one needs to synchronously reserve two equal names in two different abstractions.
1. The reservation map lets you reserve an infinite amount of names in a first frame-preserving update.
2. Next you can use that infinite set to reserve a particular name in some other abstraction, with the usual "strong allocation" lemma that picks the new name from any infinite set.
3. Finally you can take that one name you got, and since it is in the infinite set you reserved, you may now own that name in the reservation map after a second frame-preserving update.
The code for this is at https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/FP/ghostcell/-/blob/master/theories/typing/lib/gsingleton.v. @pythonsq do you think you will have time to clean this up and make it into an MR?https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues/338Missing unseal tactic for siProp2020-08-30T07:04:36ZPaolo G. GiarrussoMissing unseal tactic for siProp
Here's what I've used:
```coq
(* XXX Taken from uPred.unseal / monPred.unseal, since this logic is missing for siLogic. *)
Ltac unseal_prepare := (* Coq unfold is used to circumvent bug #5699 in rewrite /foo *)
unfold bi_affinely, bi_absorbingly, bi_except_0, bi_pure, bi_emp,
monPred_upclosed, bi_and, bi_or,
bi_impl, bi_forall, bi_exist, bi_sep, bi_wand,
bi_persistently, bi_affinely, bi_later;
simpl.
(* Should be siProp.unseal. *)
Ltac siProp_unseal := unseal_prepare; siProp_primitive.unseal.
```
The second part is easy, but the first not (tho it was worse before the bi-sbi merge), and deserves to be abstracted.
Here's what I've used:
```coq
(* XXX Taken from uPred.unseal / monPred.unseal, since this logic is missing for siLogic. *)
Ltac unseal_prepare := (* Coq unfold is used to circumvent bug #5699 in rewrite /foo *)
unfold bi_affinely, bi_absorbingly, bi_except_0, bi_pure, bi_emp,
monPred_upclosed, bi_and, bi_or,
bi_impl, bi_forall, bi_exist, bi_sep, bi_wand,
bi_persistently, bi_affinely, bi_later;
simpl.
(* Should be siProp.unseal. *)
Ltac siProp_unseal := unseal_prepare; siProp_primitive.unseal.
```
The second part is easy, but the first not (tho it was worse before the bi-sbi merge), and deserves to be abstracted.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues/335iris.sty incompatible with acmart2020-07-15T12:25:40ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.orgiris.sty incompatible with acmartThe `\nequiv` macro in `iris.sty` clashes with something that is import by the `acm` template. In our own papers, we work around this by undefining `\nequiv` locally, but that's not great.
We should either always overwrite whatever the existing `\nequiv` is, or else change the name of our macro.The `\nequiv` macro in `iris.sty` clashes with something that is import by the `acm` template. In our own papers, we work around this by undefining `\nequiv` locally, but that's not great.
We should either always overwrite whatever the existing `\nequiv` is, or else change the name of our macro.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues/334Expand test coverage of proofmode2020-07-14T07:13:05ZTej Chajedtchajed@mit.eduExpand test coverage of proofmodeThe proof mode tests don't cover the following:
- [ ] `iRename`
- [ ] `iTypeOf`
- [ ] `iInduction`'s ability to freshen the inductive hypothesis
I have tests for the first two on my [bytes-ident](https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/tchajed/iris-coq/-/tree/bytes-ident) branch.The proof mode tests don't cover the following:
- [ ] `iRename`
- [ ] `iTypeOf`
- [ ] `iInduction`'s ability to freshen the inductive hypothesis
I have tests for the first two on my [bytes-ident](https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/tchajed/iris-coq/-/tree/bytes-ident) branch.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues/332Become part of Coq Platform?2020-07-21T18:01:10ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.orgBecome part of Coq Platform?We should consider making iris part of the [Coq Platform](https://github.com/MSoegtropIMC/coq-platform/blob/master/charter.md).
Quoting Michael Soegtrop:
> So if IRIS becomes part of the platform, the platform takes care that there is a reliable, fast and fool proof way to install Coq including IRIS on Windows, OSX and - maybe a bit less fool proof - Linux. This should make it easier for teachers and interested explorers to install IRIS. On the other hand you agree to do your best to deliver a working release of IRIS for any major Coq release (like 8.12, 8.13) within at most 3 months, better 1 month.We should consider making iris part of the [Coq Platform](https://github.com/MSoegtropIMC/coq-platform/blob/master/charter.md).
Quoting Michael Soegtrop:
> So if IRIS becomes part of the platform, the platform takes care that there is a reliable, fast and fool proof way to install Coq including IRIS on Windows, OSX and - maybe a bit less fool proof - Linux. This should make it easier for teachers and interested explorers to install IRIS. On the other hand you agree to do your best to deliver a working release of IRIS for any major Coq release (like 8.12, 8.13) within at most 3 months, better 1 month.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues/331simpl breaks error checking of `iNext (S i)`2020-07-14T08:21:09ZPaolo G. Giarrussosimpl breaks error checking of `iNext (S i)`I'd expect `iNext (S i)` to introduce exactly `S i` later, and fail otherwise. However, after e.g. `simpl` turns `▷^(S i) P` into `▷ ▷^i P`, that will sometimes introduce _one_ later, as shown below.
```coq
From iris.proofmode Require Import tactics.
Lemma foo i {PROP} P : P ⊢@{PROP} ▷^(S i) P.
Proof.
iIntros "H".
Fail iNext 2.
iNext (S i).
Fail iNext i.
Fail iNext.
iExact "H".
Restart.
iIntros "H /=".
Fail iNext 2.
iNext (S i).
iNext i. (* !!! *)
Abort.
```
### Iris version
```
$ opam show coq-iris -f version
dev.2020-05-24.2.af5e50e7
```
with Coq 8.11.1.I'd expect `iNext (S i)` to introduce exactly `S i` later, and fail otherwise. However, after e.g. `simpl` turns `▷^(S i) P` into `▷ ▷^i P`, that will sometimes introduce _one_ later, as shown below.
```coq
From iris.proofmode Require Import tactics.
Lemma foo i {PROP} P : P ⊢@{PROP} ▷^(S i) P.
Proof.
iIntros "H".
Fail iNext 2.
iNext (S i).
Fail iNext i.
Fail iNext.
iExact "H".
Restart.
iIntros "H /=".
Fail iNext 2.
iNext (S i).
iNext i. (* !!! *)
Abort.
```
### Iris version
```
$ opam show coq-iris -f version
dev.2020-05-24.2.af5e50e7
```
with Coq 8.11.1.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues/330Consider adding `iEnough` variants of `iAssert` ?2020-06-26T07:35:15ZPaolo G. GiarrussoConsider adding `iEnough` variants of `iAssert` ?Something like:
```coq
Tactic Notation "iEnough" open_constr(Q) "with" constr(Hs) "as" constr(pat) :=
iAssert Q with Hs as pat; first last.
Tactic Notation "iEnough" open_constr(Q) "as" constr(pat) :=
iAssert Q as pat; first last.
```
The point is just readability, and adding all the overloads is probably not worth it, but maybe this would change with an Ltac2 proofmode?Something like:
```coq
Tactic Notation "iEnough" open_constr(Q) "with" constr(Hs) "as" constr(pat) :=
iAssert Q with Hs as pat; first last.
Tactic Notation "iEnough" open_constr(Q) "as" constr(pat) :=
iAssert Q as pat; first last.
```
The point is just readability, and adding all the overloads is probably not worth it, but maybe this would change with an Ltac2 proofmode?https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues/329Iris Website Reform2020-09-29T15:48:56ZRalf Jungjung@mpi-sws.orgIris Website ReformWe had a long discussion on Mattermost today discussing potential improvements to the website. Some of the take-aways include:
* We'd like to move to a static site generator (Jekyll, or something else if someone makes a good pitch).
* We'd like to split the website into sub-pages, as the list of papers is getting too long.
* We'd like to have the website repo public for contributors. I think it would make sense to have it in the Iris organization here on MPI's GitLab.
* In terms of content, the concern that triggered this discussion was along the lines of "(some) people think Iris is just for academic/toy/ML-like languages". We should probably put the fact that Iris is very flexible front and center, maybe by picking a few papers to display on the front page that use Iris for various models of real-world definitely-not-toy languages (RustBelt for Rust, runST for Haskell, DOT for Scala, "Non-Determinism in C Expressions" for C, Goose for Go, and once that paper exists RefinedC for C).
* We could also highlight the different kinds of properties people verify in Iris (type system soundness, refinement, verification of concurrent algorithms, non-interference, ...).
I expect I will take the lead on setting up the infrastructure for wiring up GitLab with Jekyll and GH pages, and @robbertkrebbers offered to take the lead on the content side of things.We had a long discussion on Mattermost today discussing potential improvements to the website. Some of the take-aways include:
* We'd like to move to a static site generator (Jekyll, or something else if someone makes a good pitch).
* We'd like to split the website into sub-pages, as the list of papers is getting too long.
* We'd like to have the website repo public for contributors. I think it would make sense to have it in the Iris organization here on MPI's GitLab.
* In terms of content, the concern that triggered this discussion was along the lines of "(some) people think Iris is just for academic/toy/ML-like languages". We should probably put the fact that Iris is very flexible front and center, maybe by picking a few papers to display on the front page that use Iris for various models of real-world definitely-not-toy languages (RustBelt for Rust, runST for Haskell, DOT for Scala, "Non-Determinism in C Expressions" for C, Goose for Go, and once that paper exists RefinedC for C).
* We could also highlight the different kinds of properties people verify in Iris (type system soundness, refinement, verification of concurrent algorithms, non-interference, ...).
I expect I will take the lead on setting up the infrastructure for wiring up GitLab with Jekyll and GH pages, and @robbertkrebbers offered to take the lead on the content side of things.https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/iris/iris/-/issues/321Make `contractive_proper` into a lemma, or control other instances that make ...2020-10-20T09:21:24ZPaolo G. GiarrussoMake `contractive_proper` into a lemma, or control other instances that make it costly.Successful typeclass searches for `contractive_proper` take 0.1s — as shown by replacing `contractive_proper _` with `_`. So it should maybe be disabled like `ne_proper` (see 6df6c641aadd50cd9808035f77e41048a99e6600).
Logs like https://gist.github.com/Blaisorblade/541416169b97729e60bb80fb0f259b7d reveal that the problem is that `proper_reflexive` is tried first, and then search diverges. Finding a way to blacklist certain instances for `Reflexive (equiv ==> equiv)%signature` would be useful — maybe removing them and replacing them with `Hint Extern`?Successful typeclass searches for `contractive_proper` take 0.1s — as shown by replacing `contractive_proper _` with `_`. So it should maybe be disabled like `ne_proper` (see 6df6c641aadd50cd9808035f77e41048a99e6600).
Logs like https://gist.github.com/Blaisorblade/541416169b97729e60bb80fb0f259b7d reveal that the problem is that `proper_reflexive` is tried first, and then search diverges. Finding a way to blacklist certain instances for `Reflexive (equiv ==> equiv)%signature` would be useful — maybe removing them and replacing them with `Hint Extern`?