Hi Florian,
while I very much welcome the simplified printing rules and your effort
of unifying case_prod/split, I am not sure if adding a third alternative
name is the way to go. The situation reminds me of the one depicted in [1].
Clearly, case_prod is the "right" name from the perspective of the
(co)datatype package.
Dmitriy
[1] https://xkcd.com/927/
On 10.09.2015 12:02, Florian Haftmann wrote:
* Combinator to represent case distinction on products is named
"uncurry", with "split" and "prod_case" retained as input abbreviations.
Partially applied occurences of "uncurry" with eta-contracted body
terms are not printed with special syntax, to provide a compact
notation and getting rid of a special-case print translation.
Hence, the "uncurry"-expressions are printed the following way:
a) fully applied "uncurry f p": explicit case-expression;
b) partially applied with explicit double lambda abstraction in
the body term "uncurry (%a b. t [a, b])": explicit paired abstraction;
c) partially applied with eta-contracted body term "uncurry f":
no special syntax, plain "uncurry" combinator.
This aims for maximum readability in a given subterm.
INCOMPATIBILITY.
This refers to e6b1236f9b3d.
This schema emerged after some experimentation and seems to be a
convenient compromise. The longer perspective is to overcome the
case_prod/split schism eventually and consolidate theorem names accordingly.
The next step after this initial cleanup is to tackle the »let (a, b) =
… in …« issue.
Florian
_______________________________________________
isabelle-dev mailing list
isabelle-...@in.tum.de
https://mailmanbroy.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/mailman/listinfo/isabelle-dev
_______________________________________________
isabelle-dev mailing list
isabelle-...@in.tum.de
https://mailmanbroy.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/mailman/listinfo/isabelle-dev
