No. not yet. - chris

On 09/03/2012 01:26 AM, Christian Urban wrote:

Hi Christian,

Did this already get into the Distribution and AFP?

Christian

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 at 16:19:08 (+0900), Christian Sternagel wrote:
  > Sorry! I forgot to commit my last change (and sorry for the many typos
  > in my last email). - chris
  >
  > On 08/30/2012 03:36 PM, Christian Sternagel wrote:
  > > Dear developers,
  > >
  > > since consolidations where encouraged, please find attached my latest
  > > attempt (the consolidation lies in the fact that Sublist_Order (from the
  > > Library), Well_Quasi_Orders (from the AFP), and Myhill_Nerode (from the
  > > AFP) are now all based on Sublist instead of cooking there separate but
  > > equivalent list relations):
  > >
  > > I renamed List_Prefix into Sublist, which no contains definitions and
  > > facts about prefixes, suffixes, embedding, and sublists (the special
  > > case of embedding where we may just drop elements).
  > >
  > >
  > > On 04/26/2012 12:45 PM, Christian Sternagel wrote:
  > >> Library/Sublist_Order contains another copy (less_eq_list) of (a
  > >> restricted variant of) embedding on lists.
  > > Thus is no based on the sublist relation "sub" from Sublist.
  > >
  > >>> How about replacing List_Prefix by a theory Sublist and populating it
  > >>> with facts about prefixes, suffixes (or postfixes, whichever is
  > >>> preferred) .oO(I just noticed that my spell-checker knows "suffix" but
  > >>> it doesn't know "postfix" ;)) and sublists (i.e., embedded lists). The
  > >>> latter are used in at least two different AFP entries.
  > > This is exactly what I did. The current naming scheme is
  > >
  > > prefixeq/prefix
  > > suffixeq/suffix
  > > emb
  > > sub
  > >
  > > in contrast to the previous
  > >
  > > prefix/strict_prefix
  > > postfix
  > >
  > > However, I have no strong opinion about those names.
  > >
  > >>> Two other issues with List_Prefix:
  > >>>
  > >>> 1) It defines the syntax >>= for suffixes (which I would prefer for
  > >>> monadic bind). Moreover, prefixes do not use <<= and hence it is not
  > >>> symmetric anyway.
  > > I dropped the syntax. By the way, also the argument order changed, what
  > > was "xs >>= ys" (or "postfix xs ys") is now "suffixeq ys xs",
  > > facilitating the reading that "ys is a suffix of xs".
  > >
  > >>> 2) It gives the prefix relation as an instance of "order". But there are
  > >>> many different orders on lists (e.g., prefix, suffix, embedding, length,
  > >>> ...). Could this be changed to merely have a locale interpretation.
  > > Sublist only contains the locale interpretation prefix_order for the
  > > order locale. I also added theory Prefix_Order merely containing an
  > > order class instance (+ some accompanying lemmas that are apparently
  > > needed by the tactics of Codatatype).
  > >
  > >>> Concerning syntax: could this be localized to List_Prefix (aehh... I
  > >>> mean Sublist ;)) by introducing \<le> and \<ge> in a context block? Then
  > >>> we have the convenient syntax inside the whole theory. But afterwards
  > >>> \<le> and \<ge> is still available for users and they can define
  > >>> whatever syntax they like for the relations on lists.
  > > Currently no special syntax for prefixeq/prefix and suffixeq/suffix is
  > > used at all.
  > >
  > > I tested the attached hg bundles against the main repo with
  > >
  > >    isabelle build -a -o browser_info -o document=pdf -o document_graph
  > >
  > > and against the AFP with
  > >
  > >    isabelle build -d . -g AFP
  > >
  > > I could however not test JinjaThreads, since even with poly 5.5.0, 4
  > > cores and 8GB RAM my computer flat-lined a few minutes after 'isabelle
  > > build -d . -b JinjaThreads' with ISABELLE_BUILD_OPTIONS="threads=4
  > > parallel_proofs=2". It would be much appreciated if somebody with access
  > > to a more powerful computer could adapt JinjaThreads.
  > >
  > > cheers
  > >
  > > chris
  > >
  > > PS: one FIXME is to be found in Sublist. I added a (in my opinion) very
  > > convenient definition transp_on (to characterize predicates that are
  > > transitive on a given set). More such definitions can be found in
  > > Restricted_Predicates from my AFP entry Well_Quasi_Orders. I would say,
  > > the correct place to put them is as part of the Isabelle distribution...
  > > maybe a theory Predicate (alas, such a theory already exists but is
  > > concerned with completely different things, as far as I could see).
  > >
  > >
  > > _______________________________________________
  > > isabelle-dev mailing list
  > > [email protected]
  > > 
https://mailmanbroy.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/mailman/listinfo/isabelle-dev
  > >
  >
  >
  > xuntyped binary data, sublist.hgbund [Press RETURN to save to a file]
  > _______________________________________________
  > isabelle-dev mailing list
  > [email protected]
  > https://mailmanbroy.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/mailman/listinfo/isabelle-dev


_______________________________________________
isabelle-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailmanbroy.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/mailman/listinfo/isabelle-dev

Reply via email to