Nipping this historical artifact in the bud before it roots. It's often
useful to be able to `map` directly to the result of a StateT computation
and due to how Functor works this is made harder when the tuple is
(a,state) vs (state,a)
* [contrib] Add misc libraries to contrib
Expose some `private` function in libs/base that I needed, and seem like
their visibility was forgotten
I'd appreciate a code review, especially to tell me I'm
re-implementing something that's already elsewhere in the library
Mostly extending existing functionality:
* `Data/Void.idr`: add some utility functions for manipulating absurdity.
* `Decidable/Decidable/Extra.idr`: add support for double negation elimination in decidable relations
* `Data/Fun/Extra.idr`:
+ add `application` (total and partil) for n-ary functions
+ add (slightly) dependent versions of these operations
* `Decidable/Order/Strict.idr`: a strict preorder is what you get when
you remove the diagonal from a pre-order. For example, `<` is the
associated preorder for `<=` over `Nat`.
Analogous to `Decidable.Order`. The proof search mechanism struggled
a bit, so I had to hack it --- sorry.
Eventually we should move `Data.Fun.Extra.Pointwise` to `Data.Vect.Quantifiers` in base
but we don't have any interesting uses for it at the moment so it's not
urgent.
Co-authored by @gallais
Until now namespaces were stored as (reversed) lists of strings.
It led to:
* confusing code where we work on the underlying representation of
namespaces rather than say what we mean (using `isSuffixOf` to mean
`isParentOf`)
* potentially introducing errors by not respecting the invariant cf.
bug report #616 (but also name generation in the scheme backend
although that did not lead to bugs as it was self-consistent AFAICT)
* ad-hoc code to circumvent overlapping interface implementation when
showing / pretty-printing namespaces
This PR introduces a `Namespace` newtype containing a list of strings.
Nested namespaces are still stored in reverse order but the exposed
interface aims to support programming by saying what we mean
(`isParentOf`, `isApproximationOf`, `X <.> Y` computes to `X.Y`, etc.)
irrespective of the underlying representation.
Until now namespaces were stored as (reversed) lists of strings.
It led to:
* confusing code where we work on the representation rather than say
what we mean (e.g. using `isSuffixOf` to mean `isParentOf`)
* potentially introducing errors by not respecting the invariant cf.
bug report #616 (but also name generation in the scheme backend
although that did not lead to bugs as it was self-consistent AFAICT)
* ad-hoc code to circumvent overlapping interface implementations when
showing / pretty-printing namespaces
This introduces a Namespace newtype containing non-empty lists of
strings. Nested namespaces are still stored in reverse order but the
exposed interface aims to support programming by saying what we mean
(`isParentOf`, `isApproximationOf`, `X <.> Y` computes to `X.Y`, etc.)
irrespective of the underlying representation.
Main change
===========
The main change is to the type of function dealing with an untouched
segment of the local scope. e.g.
```
weak : {outer, vars : _} -> (ns : List Name) ->
tm (outer ++ inner) -> tm (outer ++ ns ++ inner)
```
Instead we now write
```
weak : SizeOf ns -> tm (outer ++ inner) -> tm (outer ++ ns ++ inner)
```
meaning that we do not need the values of `outer`, `inner` and `ns`
at runtime. Instead we only demand a `SizeOf ns` which is a `Nat`
together with an (erased) proof that `ns` is of that length.
Other modifications
===================
Quadratic behaviour
-------------------
A side effect of this refactor is the removal of two sources of
quadratic behaviour. They typically arise in a situation where
work is done on a scope of the form
```
outer ++ done ++ ns ++ inner
```
When `ns` is non-empty, some work is performed and then the variable
is moved to the pile of things we are `done` with. This leads to
recursive calls of the form `f done` -> `f (done ++ [v])` leading
to a cost quadratic in the size of `ns`.
Now that we only care about `SizeOf done`, the recursive call is
(once all the runtime irrelevant content is erased) for the form
`f n` -> `f (S n)`!
More runtime irrelevance
------------------------
In some places we used to rely on a list of names `vars` being
available. However once we only care about the length of `vars`,
the fact it is not available is not a limitation.
For instance a `SizeOf vars` can be reconstructed from an environment
assigning values to `vars` even if `vars` is irrelevant. Indeed the
size of the environment is the same as that of `vars`.
For lack of a better place, I've put it in `Syntax.PreorderReasoning`
These equations are natural in equational reasoning, but less so when
rewriting, so that's why it's there
For Void and Either
This is because I ended up using them elsewhere, so why not include them in the stdlib.
Also expose left/rightInjective functions, as are used in the DecEq proofs.
In a 'Bind', normalise the result of the first action, rather than
quoting the HNF. This improves performance since the HNF could be quite
big when quoted back.
Ideally, we wouldn't have to quote and unquote here, and we can probably
achieve this by tinkering with the evaluator.
This has an unfortunate effect on the reflection002 test, in that the
"typed template Idris" example now evaluates too much. But, I think the
overall performance is too important for the primary motivation
behind elaborator reflection. I will return to this!
This is partly to tidy things up, but also a good test for 'import as'.
Requires some internal changes since there are parts of reflection,
unelaboration and a compiler hack that rely on where things are in the
Prelude.
This is helpful when defining auto-implicits of the form:
pairEqF : DecEq a
=> (thisX, x, y : a)
-> {prfRefl : Equal x thisX}
-> (prfEq : decEq x thisX = Yes prfRefl)
=> Pair a a
pairEqF thisX x y {prfRefl} {prfEq} = MkPair x y
before auto-implicit search would fail to find `Refl` for `prfRefl`.
With this fix the solution is found.
This fix means we can avoid having to write the following.
pairEqF' : DecEq a
=> (thisX, x, y : a)
-> (prfEq : decEq x thisX = Yes (the (Equal x x) Refl))
=> Pair a a
pairEqF' thisX x y {prfEq} = MkPair x y
This didn't cause a problem before as it was likely just ignored by the C
function. According to Edwin the extra argument is a leftover from when this
was a pure scheme call.
