My point with "finite" was that for the current default setup, you don't need any type
class instantiations (see the code equations below). Only if someone imports Card_UNIV
from HOL/Library (e.g., for FinFun or for Containers), he or she has to do the
instantiations for finite_UNIV for the types on which they want to execute big operators.
But most users do not import Card_UNIV, so they are not affected.
Using a copy of "finite" is also possible and maybe even a good idea. The existing
constant "finite" is an important concept in many theorems. Using a copy "finite_code" in
the code equations separates code generation from logical reasoning, which is often a good
thing. However, if we then implement the existing constant "finite" using the equation
"finite = finite_code"
then we have not gained much and introduced some amount of duplication. And if we stick to
the existing setup for "finite" with
"finite (set xs) = True"
"finite (List.coset ys) = Code.abort ... ..."
then we run into the very same pattern-match problems that René reported. If we delete all
code equations for "finite", then this renders quickcheck a little bit less useful,
because it can no longer work on theorems involving finiteness. But I am not sure how much
quickcheck can do in practice for theorems involving "finite".
On 03/10/16 22:51, Manuel Eberl wrote:
Hm, that sounds reasonable.
However, I am not sure whether using "finite" is really such a good
idea; it will lead to people having to instantiate "finite_UNIV" for all
kinds of things all the time.
I think I once considered a similar solution using a copy of "finite"
that does Code.abort in cases where finiteness wasn't obvious (e.g.
complement), but I abandoned that idea for some reason. Still, at the
moment, I think that might be the best solution.
On 03/10/16 17:37, Andreas Lochbihler wrote:
Indeed, generic iteration over a set is only well-defined if the set is
finite. For an infinite set, the generic iteration combinator returns an
unspecified value, not 0 or 1. In fact, I had imagined a code equation
like you described, namely
"Gcd A = (if finite A then ... else Code.abort (Gcd A))"
Note that this does *not* pull in finite_UNIV. We could implement the
finiteness test by
"finite (set xs) = True"
"finite (List.coset ys) = Code.abort (STR ''Finiteness test on
If one imports HOL/Library/Card_UNIV or Containers, then one has to
provide instances for finite_UNIV and a bunch of other type classes
anyways. That's the price of using more complicated libraries.
AFAICS, it does not really matter whether the iteration combinator takes
an additional argument, because they can be expressed in terms of each
fold_default dflt f A x = (if finite A then dflst A else
Finite_Set.fold f A x)
Finite_Set.fold f A x = fold_default (%A. THE ... A ...) f A x
The advantage of fold_default with a default value is that the
finiteness test remains inside the implementation library B whereas with
Finite_Set.fold, the finiteness test must be done whenever one wants to
use the combinator. So this might be an argument in favour of fold_default.
On 03/10/16 16:27, Manuel Eberl wrote:
I'm afraid it's not quite as easy as that. You cannot use the existing
combinators for comp_fun_commute for Gcd. For infinite sets, these
combinators return the neutral element (i.e. "0" for Gcd and "1" for
Lcm), but not every infinite set has Gcd 0 or Lcm 1. For setsum/setprod,
this works because it is quite simply defined that way, but for Gcd/Lcm
it is not.
So the alternative would be something like "Gcd A = (if finite A then
<combinator magic> else Code.abort …)". This does not work well either,
because it requires being able to decide "finite A", which typically
introduces the unwanted typeclass requirement "finite_UNIV".
My suggestion would be a combinator that, in order to implement a
function f :: 'a set => 'a, takes as arguments both a fold operation of
type "'a cfc" /and/ the function f itself.
It then performs the fold on any "finite by construction" set (e.g. sets
represented by the "set" constructor) and returns "Code.abort … (f A)"
for anything else (e.g. a set represented by the "coset" constructor).
I planned on implementing this at some point, but I've quite a bit of
other stuff to do and I wanted to discuss it first, so I never really
got around to doing it.
On 03/10/16 16:15, Andreas Lochbihler wrote:
Hi René and Manuel,
Indeed, for sets, expressing the code equations in terms of a generic
iteration operation on sets would do the job for most of the cases. The
comp_fun_commute and comp_fun_idem types in Containers precisely do
this, but they have not been integrated in the HOL library yet. They
should work all kinds of big operators (setsum, setprod, Gcd, etc) and
could be added to the HOL library.
Of course, some special case tricks no longer work if go for a generic
iteration operation. For example, one could prove "Gcd (List.coset xs) =
1" for natural numbers and declare a code equation. Such things would no
longer be possible, but I am not sure whether they are done at all at
Manuel's suggestion of code_abort is a bit cleaner than René's use
Code.abort, because Code.abort does not work with normalisation by
evaluation whereas code_abort does.
On 03/10/16 15:29, Manuel Eberl wrote:
This is a problem that I have given quite some thought in the past. The
problem is the following: You have a theory A providing certain
operations on sets (in this case: Gcd) and a theory B providing
implementations for sets (in this case: Containers).
The problem is that the code equations for the operations from A depend
on the implementation that is chosen for sets. A cannot give code
equations for every possible implementation of sets, while B cannot
possibly import every theory that has operations involving sets and
code equations for it.
The best possible solution would be to imitate the way it is currently
done for setsum, setprod, etc: Define a sufficiently general combinator
that iterates over the set and give the code equations in A in terms of
this combinator. Then B only has to reimplement this generic
That would be the cleanest solution, but I'm not sure how such a
combinator would look like. The folding operation would probably
satisfy some associativity/commutativity laws and have that information
available at the type level (similar to the cfc type in Containers).
By the way, my current workaround for this problem is to declare all
problematic constants as "code_abort".
On 03/10/16 15:21, Thiemann, Rene wrote:
in the following theory, the export-code fails:
(Isabelle 957ba35d1338, AFP 618f04bf906f)
definition foo :: "'a :: factorial_semiring_gcd ⇒ 'a ⇒ 'a" where
"foo x y = gcd y x"
definition bar :: "int ⇒ int" where
"bar x = foo x (x - 1)"
export_code bar in Haskell
The problem arises from two issues:
- factorial_semiring_gcd requires code for
Gcd :: “Set ‘a => ‘a”, not only for the binary “gcd :: ‘a => ‘a =>
- the code-equation for Gcd is Gcd_eucl_set: "Gcd_eucl (set xs) =
foldl gcd_eucl 0 xs”
where “set” is only a constructor if one does not load the
It would be nice, if one can either alter factorial_semiring_gcd so
that it does not
require “Gcd” anymore, or if the code-equation is modified in a way
co-existence with containers. (Of course, similarly for Lcm).
With best regards,
Akihisa, Sebastiaan, and René
PS: We currently solve the problem by disabling Gcd and Lcm as
lemma [code]: "(Gcd_eucl :: rat set ⇒ rat) = Code.abort (STR ''no Gcd
on sets'') (λ _. Gcd_eucl)" by simp
lemma [code]: "(Lcm_eucl :: rat set ⇒ rat) = Code.abort (STR ''no Lcm
on sets'') (λ _. Lcm_eucl)" by simp
isabelle-dev mailing list
isabelle-dev mailing list
isabelle-dev mailing list