The base logic described in \Sref{sec:base-logic} works over an arbitrary camera $\monoid$ defining the structure of the resources.

It turns out that we can generalize this further and permit picking cameras ``$\iFunc(\Prop)$'' that depend on the structure of propositions themselves.

...

...

@@ -348,7 +348,7 @@ Effectively, we just defined a way to instantiate the base logic with $\Res$ as

We thus obtain all the rules of \Sref{sec:base-logic}, and furthermore, we can use the maps $\wIso$ and $\wIso^{-1}$\emph{in the logic} to convert between logical propositions $\Sem\Prop$ and the domain $\iPreProp$ which is used in the construction of $\Res$ -- so from elements of $\iPreProp$, we can construct elements of $\Sem{\textlog M}$, which are the elements that can be owned in our logic.

\paragraph{Proof composability.}

To make our proofs composeable, we \emph{generalize} our proofs over the family of functors.

To make our proofs composable, we \emph{generalize} our proofs over the family of functors.

This is possible because we made $\Res$ a \emph{product} of all the cameras picked by the user, and because we can actually work with that product ``pointwise''.

So instead of picking a \emph{concrete} family, proofs will assume to be given an \emph{arbitrary} family of functors, plus a proof that this family \emph{contains the functors they need}.

Composing two proofs is then merely a matter of conjoining the assumptions they make about the functors.

@@ -398,7 +398,7 @@ We use the notation $\namesp.\iname$ for the namespace $[\iname] \dplus \namesp$

The elements of a namespaces are \emph{structured invariant names} (think: Java fully qualified class name).

They, too, are lists of $\nat$, the same type as namespaces.

In order to connect this up to the definitions of \Sref{sec:invariants}, we need a way to map structued invariant names to $\InvName$, the type of ``plain'' invariant names.

In order to connect this up to the definitions of \Sref{sec:invariants}, we need a way to map structured invariant names to $\InvName$, the type of ``plain'' invariant names.

Any injective mapping $\textlog{namesp\_inj}$ will do; and such a mapping has to exist because $\List(\nat)$ is countable and $\InvName$ is infinite.

Whenever needed, we (usually implicitly) coerce $\namesp$ to its encoded suffix-closure, \ie to the set of encoded structured invariant names contained in the namespace: \[\namecl\namesp\eqdef\setComp{\iname}{\Exists\namesp'. \iname=\textlog{namesp\_inj}(\namesp' \dplus\namesp)}\]