Implement tLazy and tForce in EAst #1058
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
With no evaluation semantics yet. Use them in ECoInductiveToInductive to allow efficient (unverified) implementation of cofixpoints in target languages.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This add new term constructors to map to lazy and force in ocaml/malfunction or more naive thunks in other targets.
This is now used in the unverified ECoInductiveToInductive phase. In coq-malfunction we can compile this to ocaml's implementation for an efficient implementation of coinductives and cofixpoints.
As these constructors are not produced by erasure, and we do NOT add evaluation rules for lazy/force, the correctness proofs do not change for the rest of the pipeline. It should just be considered unsafe to use lazy and force.