 05 Jun, 2017 3 commits


Andrei Paskevich authored
current syntax is exception Return (int, ghost bool) in ... try ... raise Return (5, false) ... with Return (i, b) > ... ... These exceptions can carry mutable and nonmonomorphic values. They can be raised from local functions defined in the scope of the exception declaration.

Andrei Paskevich authored

Andrei Paskevich authored
Since local exceptions can carry results with type variables and regions, we need to freeze them in the function signatures.

 04 Jun, 2017 6 commits


Andrei Paskevich authored

Andrei Paskevich authored
avoid using logical symbols in programs in a few places

Andrei Paskevich authored
I know that extraction and execution are much more fun than the boring "can we even parse WhyML at all?" question, but you see, if our parsing/typechecking is broken, then the fun stuff is broken, too. And I really prefer to get the error messages about the typechecking being broken from the typechecking part of the bench, and not from the testapi or extraction part. Merci pour votre compréhension.

Andrei Paskevich authored
Aesthetics is a harsh mistress.

Andrei Paskevich authored
This is a prototype version that requires no additional annotation. In addition to the existing rules of scoping:  it is forbidden to declare two symbols with the same name in the same scope ("everything can be unambiguously named"),  it is allowed to shadow an earlier declaration with a newer one, if they belong to different scopes (e.g., via import), we define one new rule:  when an rsymbol rs_new would normally shadow an rsymbol rs_old, but (1) both of them are either  binary relations: t > t > bool,  binary operators: t > t > t, or  unary operators: t > t and (2) their argument types are not the same, then rs_old remains visible in the current scope. Both symbols should take nonghost arguments and return nonghost results, but effects are allowed. The name itself is not taken into account, hence it is possible to overload "div", "mod", or "fact". Clause (1) allows us to perform type inference for a family of rsymbols, using an appropriate generalized signature. Clause (2) removes guaranteed ambiguities: we treat this case as the user's intention to redefine the symbol for a given type. Type inference failures are still possible: either due to polymorphism (['a > 'a] combines with [int > int] and will fail with the "ambiguous notation" error), or due to inability to infer the precise types of arguments. Explicit type annotations and/or use of qualified names for disambiguation should always allow to bypass the errors. Binary operations on Booleans are treated as relations, not as operators. Thus, (+) on bool will not combine with (+) on int. This overloading only concerns programs: in logic, the added rule does not apply, and the old symbols get shadowed by the new ones. In this setting, modules never export families of overloaded symbols: it is impossible to "use import" a single module, and have access to several rsymbols for (=) or (+). The new "overloading" rule prefers to silently discard the previous binding when it cannot be combined with the new one. This allows us to be mostly backward compatible with existing programs (except for the cases where type inference fails, as discussed above). This rule should be enough to have several equalities for different program types or overloaded arithmetic operations for bounded integers. These rsymbols should not be defined as letfunctions: in fact, it is forbidden now to redefine equality in logic, and the bounded integers should be all coerced into mathematical integers anyway. I would like to be able to overload mixfix operators too, but there is no reasonable generalized signature for them: compare "([]) : map 'a 'b > 'a > 'b" with "([]) : array 'a > int > 'a" with "([]) : monomap > key > elt". If we restrict the overloading to symbols with specific names, we might go with "'a > 'b > 'c" for type inference (and even "'a > 'b" for some prefix operators, such as "!" or "?"). To discuss.

Andrei Paskevich authored

 03 Jun, 2017 2 commits


Andrei Paskevich authored

Andrei Paskevich authored

 02 Jun, 2017 5 commits


MARCHE Claude authored

MARCHE Claude authored

MARCHE Claude authored

MARCHE Claude authored

Raphael RieuHelft authored

 01 Jun, 2017 5 commits


MARCHE Claude authored

MARCHE Claude authored

Andrei Paskevich authored
As we have to implement the "HERE" and "PARENT" qualifiers anyway, allowing this shadowing lets us accept more programs without compromising the "everything is unambigously nameable" invariant.

Andrei Paskevich authored

Martin Clochard authored
(+ élimination de la preuve Coq)

 31 May, 2017 14 commits


MARCHE Claude authored

MARCHE Claude authored

MARCHE Claude authored

MARCHE Claude authored

MARCHE Claude authored

MARCHE Claude authored

MARCHE Claude authored

Mário Pereira authored

Mário Pereira authored

Mário Pereira authored

Mário Pereira authored

Guillaume Melquiond authored

Guillaume Melquiond authored

Guillaume Melquiond authored

 30 May, 2017 1 commit


Mário Pereira authored

 29 May, 2017 2 commits


JeanChristophe Filliâtre authored

Mário Pereira authored

 27 May, 2017 1 commit


Andrei Paskevich authored
The current syntax is "{ <term> }", which is shorter than "pure { <term> }", and does not require a keyword. Better alternatives are welcome. As for type inference, we infer the type pf the term under Epure without binding destructible type variables in the program. In particular, let ghost fn x = { x + 1 } will not typecheck. Indeed, even if we detect that the result is [int], the type of the formal parameter [x[ is not inferred in the process, and thus stays at ['xi]. Another problem is related to the fact that variable and function namespaces are not yet separated when we perform type inference. Thus both fuctions let ghost fn (x: int) = let x a = a in { x + 5 } and let ghost fn (x: int) = let x a = a in { x 5 } will not typecheck, since the type of [x] is ['a > 'a] when we infer the type for the Epure term, but it becomes [int], when we construct the final program expression. Probably, the only reasonable solution is to keep variables and functions in the same namespace, so that [x] simply can not be used in annotations after being redefined as a program function.

 25 May, 2017 1 commit


Andrei Paskevich authored
We cannot split ite's and matches created in this way, and it is hard to control how much goes into them. Try for now to only convert boolvalued ite's.
