Remove IORef indirection from TheoremDB
#1882
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
RyanGlScott
reviewed
Jun 26, 2023
RyanGlScott
approved these changes
Jun 29, 2023
samcowger
added
the
ready-to-merge
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Previously,
TheoremDBs encapsulated mutable state, realized with anIORef. Here, I try to preserve the semantics of this structure while removing its reliance on in-place mutation. The job of replacing an oldTheoremDBwith a new one is now the duty of clients ofSAWScript.Proof, which generally will return a new DB when a theorem may have been added to it. See, e.g., howfinishProof's type has changed.SAWScript.Proofmaintains its existing ownership/secrecy ofTheoremDB's representation.The motivation for this is to try to centralize state management in SAW's top-level environments (in particular,
TopLevelRW, which ought to be responsible for the sort of state management duties thatTheoremDBhad taken on).One question I have in particular: does my purification of
reachableTheoremshave the potential to change the semantics/strictness of potential calls topanicfrom within the function?cc @eddywestbrook @m-yac