theory Further

imports Setup

begin

section {* Further issues \label{sec:further} *}

subsection {* Further reading *}

text {*

  To dive deeper into the issue of code generation, you should visit

  the Isabelle/Isar Reference Manual \cite{isabelle-isar-ref}, which

  contains exhaustive syntax diagrams.

*}

subsection {* Modules *}

text {*

  When invoking the @{command export_code} command it is possible to leave

  out the @{keyword "module_name"} part;  then code is distributed over

  different modules, where the module name space roughly is induced

  by the @{text Isabelle} theory name space.

  Then sometimes the awkward situation occurs that dependencies between

  definitions introduce cyclic dependencies between modules, which in the

  @{text Haskell} world leaves you to the mercy of the @{text Haskell} implementation

  you are using,  while for @{text SML}/@{text OCaml} code generation is not possible.

  A solution is to declare module names explicitly.

  Let use assume the three cyclically dependent

  modules are named \emph{A}, \emph{B} and \emph{C}.

  Then, by stating

*}

code_modulename %quote SML

  A ABC

  B ABC

  C ABC

text {*\noindent

  we explicitly map all those modules on \emph{ABC},

  resulting in an ad-hoc merge of this three modules

  at serialisation time.

*}

subsection {* Evaluation oracle *}

text {*

  Code generation may also be used to \emph{evaluate} expressions

  (using @{text SML} as target language of course).

  For instance, the @{command value} reduces an expression to a

  normal form with respect to the underlying code equations:

*}

value %quote "42 / (12 :: rat)"

text {*

  \noindent will display @{term "7 / (2 :: rat)"}.

  The @{method eval} method tries to reduce a goal by code generation to @{term True}

  and solves it in that case, but fails otherwise:

*}

lemma %quote "42 / (12 :: rat) = 7 / 2"

  by %quote eval

text {*

  \noindent The soundness of the @{method eval} method depends crucially 

  on the correctness of the code generator;  this is one of the reasons

  why you should not use adaptation (see \secref{sec:adaptation}) frivolously.

*}

subsection {* Code antiquotation *}

text {*

  In scenarios involving techniques like reflection it is quite common

  that code generated from a theory forms the basis for implementing

  a proof procedure in @{text SML}.  To facilitate interfacing of generated code

  with system code, the code generator provides a @{text code} antiquotation:

*}

datatype %quote form = T | F | And form form | Or form form (*<*)

(*>*) ML %quotett {*

  fun eval_form @{code T} = true

    | eval_form @{code F} = false

    | eval_form (@{code And} (p, q)) =

        eval_form p andalso eval_form q

    | eval_form (@{code Or} (p, q)) =

        eval_form p orelse eval_form q;

*}

text {*

  \noindent @{text code} takes as argument the name of a constant;  after the

  whole @{text SML} is read, the necessary code is generated transparently

  and the corresponding constant names are inserted.  This technique also

  allows to use pattern matching on constructors stemming from compiled

  @{text "datatypes"}.

  For a less simplistic example, theory @{theory Ferrack} is

  a good reference.

*}

subsection {* Imperative data structures *}

text {*

  If you consider imperative data structures as inevitable for a specific

  application, you should consider

  \emph{Imperative Functional Programming with Isabelle/HOL}

  \cite{bulwahn-et-al:2008:imperative};

  the framework described there is available in theory @{theory Imperative_HOL}.

*}

end