> Right now we should merely have clear terminology in the discussion. > The language keywords can be finalized later.
Indeed. In this delicate corner, modifying surface syntax makes little
headache. Lets get right the mental model and the internal
implementation first.
> Note that 'interpret' within a local proof context is also without
> subscription -- as a consequence of how that works.
This is one of the reasons why I think having »interpretation« for
non-subscripting interpretations is a good idea.
> I also agree with you now that 'private' should be just about
> superficial name space issues (potentially with notation, i.e. things of
> the "syntax_declaration" category). So it can stay outside of the
> considerations here.
OK. This simplifies the picture again.
So, after these discussions, I would aim for the following:
* Using the existing patches as base, provide »subscription«. Keep
»sublocale« and »interpretation« as legacy.
* Amend the still existing flaws (reinit, subscription in instantiation, …).
* Aim for providing non-subscripting interpretation via
»interpretation«. »interpretation« on the theory level (which is not
possible due to the architecture for the local theories stack) would
then issue a legacy warning and resolve to »subscription«, until this
behaviour and »sublocale« are discontinued in a further iteration.
Let those thoughts sink further few days. If there is no veto until Apr
7th, I would go ahead to turn the patches upstream.
Thank you a lot,
Florian
--
PGP available:
http://home.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/haftmann/pgp/florian_haftmann_at_informatik_tu_muenchen_de
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ isabelle-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mailmanbroy.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/mailman/listinfo/isabelle-dev
