Commit bb8f7667 authored by Ralf Jung's avatar Ralf Jung Committed by Robbert Krebbers

some more comments

parent 162c2f80
Pipeline #247 passed with stage
......@@ -32,8 +32,16 @@ Proof.
destruct mx; rewrite /= ?elem_of_cons; naive_solver.
Qed.
(** A typeclass for whether a variable is bound in a given
context. Making this a typeclass means we can use tpeclass search
to program solving these constraints, so this becomes extensible.
Also, since typeclass search runs *after* unification, Coq has already
inferred the X for us; if we were to go for embedded proof terms ot
tactics, Coq would do things in the wrong order. *)
Class VarBound (x : string) (X : list string) :=
var_bound : bool_decide (x X).
(* FIXME shouldn't this have this Hint to only perfom search of x and X
are not evars? *)
Hint Extern 0 (VarBound _ _) => vm_compute; exact I : typeclass_instances.
Instance var_bound_proof_irrel x X : ProofIrrel (VarBound x X).
......@@ -46,6 +54,13 @@ Qed.
Inductive expr (X : list string) :=
(* Base lambda calculus *)
(* Var is the only place where the terms contain a proof. The fact that they
contain a proof at all is suboptimal, since this means two seeminlgy
convertible terms could differ in their proofs. However, this also has
some advantages:
* We can make the [X] an index, so we can do non-dependent match.
* In expr_weaken, we can push the proof all the way into Var, making
sure that proofs never block computation. *)
| Var (x : string) `{VarBound x X}
| Rec (f x : binder) (e : expr (f :b: x :b: X))
| App (e1 e2 : expr X)
......
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment