computeLib.CBV

STRUCTURE

SYNOPSIS

Call by value rewriting.

LIBRARY

compute

DESCRIPTION

The conversion CBV_CONV expects a simplification set and a term. Its term argument is rewritten using the equations added in the simplification set. The strategy used is somewhat similar to ML’s, that is call-by-value (arguments of constants are completely reduced before the rewrites associated to the constant are applied) with weak reduction (no reduction of the function body before the function is applied). The main differences are that beta-redexes are reduced with a call-by-name strategy (the argument is not reduced), and reduction under binders is done when it occurs in a position where it cannot be substituted.

The simplification sets are mutable objects, this means they are extended by side-effect. The function new_compset will create a new set containing reflexivity (REFL_CLAUSE), plus the supplied rewrites. Theorems can be added to an existing compset with the function add_thms.

It is also possible to add conversions to a simplification set with add_conv. The only restriction is that a constant (c) and an arity (n) must be provided. The conversion will be called only on terms in which c is applied to n arguments.

Two theorem “preprocessors” are provided to control the strictness of the arguments of a constant. lazyfy_thm has pattern variables on the left hand side turned into abstractions on the right hand side. This transformation is applied on every conjunct, and removes prenex universal quantifications. A typical example is COND_CLAUSES:

  (COND T a b = a) /\ (COND F a b = b)

Using these equations is very inefficient because both a and b are evaluated, regardless of the value of the boolean expression. It is better to use COND_CLAUSES with the form above

  (COND T = \a b. a) /\ (COND F = \a b. b)

The call-by-name evaluation of beta redexes avoids computing the unused branch of the conditional.

Conversely, strictify_thm does the reverse transformation. This is particularly relevant for LET_DEF:

  LET = \f x. f x   -->   LET f x = f x

This forces the evaluation of the argument before reducing the beta-redex. Hence the usual behaviour of LET.

It is necessary to provide rules for all the constants appearing in the expression to reduce (all also for those that appear in the right hand side of a rule), unless the given constant is considered as a constructor of the representation chosen. As an example, reduceLib.num_compset creates a new simplification set with all the rules needed for basic boolean and arithmetical calculations built in.

EXAMPLE

   - val rws = computeLib.new_compset [computeLib.lazyfy_thm COND_CLAUSES];
   > val rws = <compset> : compset

   - computeLib.CBV_CONV rws ``(\x.x) ((\x.x) if T then 0+0 else 10)``;
   > val it = |- (\x. x) ((\x. x) (if T then 0 + 0 else 10)) = 0 + 0 : thm

   - computeLib.CBV_CONV (reduceLib.num_compset())
              ``if 100 - 5 * 5 < 80  then 2 EXP 16 else 3``;
   > val it = |- (if 100 - 5 * 5 < 80 then 2 ** 16 else 3) = 65536 : thm

Failing to give enough rules may make CBV_CONV build a huge result, or even loop. The same may occur if the initial term to reduce contains free variables.

   val eqn = bossLib.Define `exp n p = if p=0 then 1 else n * (exp n (p-1))`;
   val _ = computeLib.add_thms [eqn] rws;

   - computeLib.CBV_CONV rws ``exp 2 n``;
   > Interrupted.

   - computeLib.set_skip rws ``COND`` (SOME 1);
   > val it = () : unit

   - computeLib.CBV_CONV rws ``exp 2 n``;
   > val it = |- exp 2 n = if n = 0 then 1 else 2 * exp 2 (n - 1) : thm

The first invocation of CBV_CONV loops since the exponent never reduces to 0. Below the first steps are computed:

    exp 2 n
    if n = 0 then 1 else 2 * exp 2 (n-1)
    if n = 0 then 1 else 2 * if (n-1) = 0 then 1 else 2 * exp 2 (n-1-1)
    ...

The call to set_skip means that if the constants COND appears applied to one argument and does not create a redex (in the example, if the condition does not reduce to T or F), then the forthcoming arguments (the two branches of the conditional) are not reduced at all.

FAILURE

Should never fail. Nonetheless, using rewrites with assumptions may cause problems when rewriting under abstractions. The following example illustrates that issue.

   - val th = ASSUME “0 = x”;
   - val tm = Term`\(x:num). x = 0`;
   - val rws = from_list [th];
   - CBV_CONV rws tm;

This fails because the 0 is replaced by x, making the assumption 0 = x. Then, the abstraction cannot be rebuilt since x appears free in the assumptions.

SEEALSO

REDUCE_CONV, bool_compset, EVAL