1 (* Title: todo's for isac core
2 Author: Walther Neuper 111013
3 (c) copyright due to lincense terms.
6 imports "~~/src/Doc/Prog_Prove/LaTeXsugar"
10 Legend: here + code since 200120
11 \<open>(*DOC\<close> identifies stuff dedicated for isac/Doc/Lucas_Interpreter
12 \<open>(*?!?\<close> identifies a design question
14 Distillation of "rounds of reforms":
15 \<open>TODOs from current changesets\<close> \<rightarrow> \<open>Postponed from current changeset\<close> \<rightarrow>
16 (*to be removed..*) \<rightarrow> \<open>Separated tasks\<close> (*.. to be removed*)
17 \<rightarrow> subsection of \<open>Major reforms\<close>
20 section \<open>TODOs from current changesets\<close>
22 Shift more complicated issues from \<open>Current changeset\<close> to \<open>Postponed from current changeset\<close>
24 subsection \<open>Current changeset\<close>
26 (*/------- to from -------\*)
27 (*\------- to from -------/*)
33 remove find_next_step' (used only for p_)
35 \item LibraryC.distinct shadows Library.distinct (+ see Library.member)
37 \item Specify.find_next_step: References.select
38 cpI = ["vonBelastungZu", "Biegelinien"]: References_Def.id
41 \item Calc.state_empty_post \<rightarrow> Calc.state_post_empty
43 \item distribute code from test/../calchead.sml
45 \item rename Tactic.Calculate -> Tactic.Evaluate
47 \item replace src/ Erls by Rule_Set.Empty
49 \item rename ptyps.sml -> specify-etc.sml
50 rename Specify -> Specify_Etc
51 rename Specify -> Specify
53 \item specific_from_prog in..end: replace o by |> (Test_Isac or Test_Some!)
55 \item cleanup ThmC in MathEngBasic
66 subsection \<open>Postponed from current changeset\<close>
70 \item Specify_Step.add has dummy argument Istate_Def.Uistate -- remove down to Ctree
72 \item Step_Specify.by_tactic (Tactic.Model_Problem' (id, _, met))
73 by_tactic (Tactic.Specify_Theory' domID)
74 had very old, strange code at 11b5b8b81876
75 ?redes Model_Problem', Specify_Theory' <--> Specify_Method: Step_Specify.complet_for ?
76 INTERMED. NO REPAIR: NOT PROMPTED IN TESTS
78 \item unify code Specify.find_next_step <--> Step_Specify.by_tactic (Tactic.Specify_Method'
80 \item Isa20.implementation: 0.2.4 Printing ML values ?INSTEAD? *.TO_STRING ???
81 ??? writeln ( make_string {x = x, y = y}); ???
83 \item revise O_Model and I_Model with an example with more than 1 variant.
85 \item ctxt is superfluous in specify-phase due to type constraints from Descript.thy
87 \item Derive.do_one: TODO find code in common with complete_solve
88 Derive.embed: TODO rewrite according to CAO (+ no intermediate access to Ctree)
90 \item Solve_Check: postponed parsing input to _ option
92 \item ? "fetch-tactics.sml" from Mathengine -> BridgeLibisabelle ?
94 \item ? unify struct.Step and struct.Solve in MathEngine ?
96 \item use "Eval_Def" for renaming identifiers
98 \item why does Test_Build_Thydata.thy depend on ProgLang and not on CalcElements ?
102 \item LI.do_next (*TODO RM..*) ???
103 \item generate.sml: RM datatype edit TOGETHER WITH datatype inout
104 \item TermC.list2isalist: typ -> term list -> term .. should NOT requires typ
105 \item get_ctxt_LI should replace get_ctxt
106 \item ALL CODE: rename spec(ification) --> know(ledge), in Specification: Relation -> Knowledge
107 \item rename Base_Tool.thy <--- Base_Tools
108 \item adopt naming conventions in Knowledge: EqSystem --> Equation_System, etc
109 \item rename field scr in meth
110 \item DEL double code: nxt_specify_init_calc IN specify.sml + step-specify.sml
118 \item clarify Tactic.Subproblem (domID, pblID) as term in Pstate {act_arg, ...}
119 there it is Free ("Subproblem", "char list \<times> ..
120 instead of Const (|???.Subproblem", "char list \<times> ..
121 AND THE STRING REPRESENTATION IS STRANGE:
122 Subproblem (''Test'',
123 ??.\ <^const> String.char.Char ''LINEAR'' ''univariate'' ''equation''
127 term2str; (*defined by..*)
128 fun term_to_string''' thy t =
130 val ctxt' = Config.put show_markup false (Proof_Context.init_global thy)
131 in Print_Mode.setmp [] (Syntax.string_of_term ctxt') t end;
133 val t = @{term "aaa + bbb"}
134 val t = @{term "Subproblem (''Test'', [''LINEAR'', ''univariate'', ''equation''])"};
136 val sss = Print_Mode.setmp [] (Syntax.string_of_term @{context}) t
138 writeln sss (*.. here perfect: Subproblem (''Test'', [''LINEAR'', ''univariate'', ''equation'']) *)
143 \item cleanup fun me:
144 fun me (*(_, Empty_Tac) p _ _ = raise ERROR ("me: Empty_Tac at " ^ pos'2str p)
145 | me*) (_, tac) p _(*NEW remove*) pt =
146 + -------------------------^^^^^^
147 # see test-code.sml fun me_trace
148 use this also for me, not only for me_ist_ctxt; del. me
149 this requires much updating in all test/*
151 \item shift tests into NEW model.sml (upd, upds_envv, ..)
153 \item clarify handling of contexts ctxt ContextC
156 \item Specify/ works with thy | Interpret/ works with ctxt | MathEngine.step works with ?!?ctxt
158 \item Check_Elementwise "Assumptions": prerequisite for ^^goal
159 rm tactic Check_elementwise "Assumptions" in a way, which keeps it for Minisubpbl
160 rm Assumptions :: bool (* TODO: remove with making ^^^ idle *)
166 \item complete mstools.sml (* survey on handling contexts:
171 \item librarys.ml --> libraryC.sml + text from termC.sml
178 \item concentrate "insert_assumptions" for locate_input_tactic in "associate", ?OR? Tactic.insert_assumptions
179 DONE for find_next_step by Tactic.insert_assumptions m' ctxt
181 \item rm from "generate1" ("Detail_Set_Inst'", Tactic.Detail_Set' ?)
182 \item ?"insert_assumptions" necessary in "init_pstate" ?+++? in "applicable_in" ?+++? "associate"
185 \item DO DELETIONS AFTER analogous concentrations in find_next_step
188 \item ? what is the difference headline <--> cascmd in
189 Subproblem' (spec, oris, headline, fmz_, context, cascmd)
190 \item Substitute' what does "re-calculation mean in the datatype comment?
192 \item inform: TermC.parse (ThyC.get_theory "Isac_Knowledge") istr --> parseNEW context istr
194 \item unify/clarify stac2tac_ |
197 \item extract common code from associate.. stac2tac_xxx
198 \item rename LItool.tac_from_prog -> Tactic.from_prog_tac ? Solve_Tac.from_prog_tac,
203 \item unify in signature LANGUAGE_TOOLS =\\
204 val pblterm: ThyC.id -> Problem.id -> term vvv vvv\\
205 val subpbl: string -> string list -> term unify with ^^^
207 \item Telem.safe is questionable: has it been replaced by Safe_Step, Not_Derivable, Helpless, etc?
208 Note: replacement of Istate.safe by Istate.appy_ didn't care much about Telem.safe.
209 If Telem.safe is kept, consider merge with CTbasic.ostate
211 \item remove find_next_step from solve Apply_Method';
212 this enforces Pos.at_first_tactic, which should be dropped, too.
218 subsection \<open>Postponed --> Major reforms\<close>
222 \item revisit bootstrap Calcelements. rule->calcelems->termC
223 would be nice, but is hard: UnparseC.terms -> TermC.s_to_string
225 \item replace all Ctree.update_* with Ctree.cupdate_problem
227 \item rename (ist as {eval, ...}) -> (ist as {eval_rls, ...})
229 \item exception PROG analogous to TERM
231 \item sig/struc ..elems --> ..elem
233 \item distille CAS-command, CAScmd, etc into a struct
235 \item check location of files:
236 test/Tools/isac/Interpret/ptyps.thy
237 test/Tools/isac/Specify.ptyps.sml
239 \item check occurences of Atools in src/ test/
240 \item Const ("Atools.pow", _) ---> Const ("Base_Tool.pow", _)
244 \item Diff.thy: differentiateX --> differentiate after removal of script-constant
245 \item Test.thy: met_test_sqrt2: deleted?!
247 \item Rewrite_Ord.rew_ord' := overwritel (! Rewrite_Ord.rew_ord', (*<<<---- use Know_Store.xxx, too*)
249 \item automatically extrac rls from program-code
250 ? take ["SignalProcessing", "Z_Transform", "Inverse_sub"] as an example ?
252 \item finish output of LItool.trace with Check_Postcond (useful for SubProblem)
254 \item replace Rule_Set.empty by Rule_Set.Empty
255 latter is more clear, but replacing ***breaks rewriting over all examples***,
256 e.g. see ERROR: rewrite__set_ called with 'Erls' for 'precond_rootpbl x'
257 in Minisubplb/200-start-method-NEXT_STEP.sml:
258 (*+* )------- in f3cac3053e7b (Rule_Set.empty just renamed, NOT deleted) we had
260 (*+*) Rls {calc = [], erls = Erls, errpatts = [], id = "empty", preconds = [], rew_ord =
261 (*+*) ("dummy_ord", fn), rules = [], scr = Empty_Prog, srls = Erls}:
262 (*+*).. THIS IS Rule_Set.empty, BUT IT DID not CAUSE ANY ERROR !
263 (*+*)------- WITH Rule_Set.empty REMOVED (based on f3cac3053e7b) we had
264 (*+*)val Empty = prls (* <---ERROR: rewrite__set_ called with 'Erls' for 'precond_rootpbl x' *)
265 ( *+*)val ["sqroot-test", "univariate", "equation", "test"] = cpI
266 THAT INDICATES, that much rewriting/evaluating JUST WORKED BY CHANCE?!?
277 section \<open>Major reforms\<close>
280 subsection \<open>Exception Size raised\<close>
282 During update Isabelle2018 --> Isabelle2019 we noticed, that
283 "isabelle build" uses resources more efficiently than "isabelle jedit".
284 The former works, but the latter causes
286 \item "Exception- Size raised"
288 \item "exception Size raised (line 169 of "./basis/LibrarySupport.sml")"
289 in test/../biegelinie-*.xml.
291 This has been detected after changeset (30cd47104ad7) "lucin: reorganise theories in ProgLang".
293 Find tools to investigate the Exception, and find ways around it eventually.
295 subsection \<open>Cleanup & review signatures wrt. implementation.pdf canonical argument order\<close>
298 \item there are comments in several signatures
299 \item ML_file "~~/src/Tools/isac/Interpret/specification-elems.sml" can be (almost) deleted
300 \item src/../Frontend/: signatures missing
304 subsection \<open>overall structure of code\<close>
307 \item try to separate Isac_Knowledge from MathEngine
308 common base: Knowledge_Author / ..??
310 \item ML_file "~~/src/Tools/isac/Interpret/ctree.sml" (*shift to base in common with Interpret*)
316 subsection \<open>Separate MathEngineBasic/ Specify/ Interpret/ MathEngine/\<close>
321 \item re-organise code for Interpret
323 \item Step*: Step_Specify | Step_Solve | Step DONE
325 \item Prog_Tac: fun get_first_argument takes both Prog_Tac + Program --- wait for separate Tactical
326 then shift into common descendant
331 \item ??????????? WHY CAN LI.by_tactic NOT BE REPLACED BY Step_Solve.by_tactic ???????????
336 subsection \<open>Review modelling- + specification-phase\<close>
342 \item check match between args of partial_function and model-pattern of meth;
343 provide error message.
345 \item "--- hack for funpack: generalise handling of meths which extend problem items ---"
347 \item see several locations of hack in code
348 \item these locations are NOT sufficient, see
349 test/../biegelinie-3.sml --- IntegrierenUndKonstanteBestimmen2: Bsp.7.70. auto ---
350 \item "fun associate" "match_ags ..dI" instead "..pI" breaks many tests, however,
351 this would be according to survey Notes (3) in src/../calchead.sml.
353 \item see "failed trial to generalise handling of meths"98298342fb6d
354 \item abstract specify + nxt_specif to common aux-funs;
355 see e.g. "--- hack for funpack: generalise handling of meths which extend problem items ---"
357 \item type model = itm list ?
358 \item review survey Notes in src/../calchead.sml: they are questionable
359 \item review copy-named, probably two issues commingled
361 \item special handling of "#Find#, because it is not a formal argument of partial_function
362 \item special naming for solutions of equation solving: x_1, x_2, ...
366 \item this has been written in one go:
368 \item reconsidering I_Model.max_vt, use problem with meth ["DiffApp", "max_by_calculus"]
369 \item reconsider add_field': where is it used for what? Shift into mk_oris
370 \item reconsider match_itms_oris: where is it used for what? max_vt ONLY???
371 \item in Specify_Method search root-oris for items (e.g. "errorBound"), #1# in survey
372 \item Specify_Problem, Specify_Method: check respective identifiers after re-Specify_
373 (relevant for pre-condition)
374 \item unify match_ags to mk_oris1..N with different args (fmz | pat list, pbl | meth
379 subsection \<open>taci list, type step\<close>
381 taci was, most likely, invented to make "fun me" more efficient by avoiding duplicate rewrite,
382 and probably, because the Kernel interface separated setNextTactic and applyTactic.
383 Both are no good reasons to make code more complicated.
385 !!! taci list is used in do_next !!!
389 \item can lev_on_total replace lev_on ? ..Test_Isac_Short + rename lev_on_total -> lev_on
391 \item Step* functions should return Calc.T instead of Calc.state_post
393 \item states.sml: check, when "length tacis > 1"
394 \item in Test_Isac.thy there is only 1 error in Interpret/inform.sml
395 \item (*WN190713 REMOVE: "creating a new node" was never implemented for more than one node?!?
397 \item brute force setting all empty ([], [], ptp) works!?! but ptp causes errors -- investigate!
401 subsection \<open>Ctree\<close>
404 # mixture pos' .. pos in cappend_*, append_* is confusing
405 # existpt p pt andalso Tactic.is_empty DIFFERENT IN append_*, cappend_* is confusing
406 "exception PTREE "get_obj: pos =" ^^^^^: ^^^^ due to cut !!!
407 NOTE: exn IN if..andalso.. IS NOT!!! DETECTED, THIS is confusing
408 see test/../--- Minisubpbl/800-append-on-Frm.sml ---
409 # ?!? "cut branches below cannot be decided here" in append_atomic
410 # sign. of functions too different ?!?canonical arg.order ?!?
413 \item remove update_branch, update_*? -- make branch, etc args of append_*
415 \item close sig Ctree, contains cappend_* ?only? --- ?make parallel to ?Pide_Store?
417 \item unify args to Ctree.state (pt, p)
418 \item fun update_env .. repl_env \<rightarrow>updatempty
425 subsection \<open>replace theory/thy by context/ctxt\<close>
429 \item Specify/ works with thy | Interpret/ works with ctxt | MathEngine.step works with ?!?ctxt
430 special case: Tactic.Refine_Problem
432 \item theory can be retrieved from ctxt by Proof_Context.theory_of
434 \item cleaup the many conversions string -- theory
435 \item make dest_spec --> (theory, pblID, metID) ?+ common_subthy ?
436 \item 1. Rewrite.eval_true_, then
437 LItool.check_leaf, Rewrite.eval_prog_expr, Step.add, LItool.tac_from_prog.
439 let val thy = ThyC.get_theory "Isac_Knowledge";(*TODO*)
442 \item in locate_input_tactic .. ?scan_dn1?; Program.is_eval_expr .use Term.exists_Const
443 \item push srls into pstate
444 \item lucas-intrpreter.locate_input_tactic: scan_to_tactic1 srls tac cstate (progr, Rule_Set.Empty)
449 subsection \<open>Rfuns, Begin_/End_Detail', Rrls, Istate\<close>
451 remove refactor Rfuns, Rule.Prog, Rule.Empty_Prog, RrlsState: this is a concept never brought to work.
452 Clarify relation to reverse rewriting!
454 \item separate mut.recursion program with rule and rls by deleting fild scr in rls
455 (possible since CS 43160c1e775a
456 ` "replace Prog. in prep_rls by Auto_Prog.gen, which generates Prog. on the fly" )
458 \item probably only "normal_form" seems to be needed
459 \item deleted Rfuns in NEW "locate_input_tactic": no active test for "locate_rule"
460 but that seems desirable
461 \item ?how is the relation to reverse-rewriting ???
462 \item "Rfuns" markers in test/../rational
464 \item datatype istate (Istate.T): remove RrlsState, pstate: use Rrls only for creating results beyond
465 rewriting and/or respective intermediate steps (e.g. cancellation of fractions).
466 Thus we get a 1-step-action which does NOT require a state beyond istate/pstate.
467 Thus we drastically reduce complexity, also get rid of "fun from_pblobj_or_detail_calc" , etc.
468 \item debug ^^^ related: is there an occurence of Steps with more than 1 element?
470 \item and do_next (* WN1907: ?only for Begin_/End_Detail' DEL!!!*)
472 \item shouldn't go Rfuns from Rewrite --> Rewrite_Set; they behave similar to "fun interSteps" ?
474 \item ?finally Prog could go from Calcelems to ProgLang?
477 subsection \<open>Inverse_Z_Transform.thy\<close>
480 \item\label{new-var-rhs} rule1..6, ruleZY introduce new variables on the rhs of the rewrite-rule.
481 ? replace rewriting with substitution ?!?
482 The problem is related to the decision of typing for "d_d" and making bound variables free (while
483 shifting specific handling in equation solving etc. to the meta-logic).
484 \item Find "stepResponse (x[n::real]::bool)" is superfluous, because immediately used by
485 rewrite-rules; see \ref{new-var-rhs}.
486 \item Reconsider whole problem:
487 input only the polynomial as argument of partial_function, in ([1], Frm) compile lhs "X z" ?
490 subsection \<open>Adopt Isabelle's numerals for Isac\<close>
493 \item replace numerals of type "real" by "nat" in some specific functions from ListC.thy
494 and have both representations in parallel for "nat".
499 subsection \<open>Redesign equation solver\<close>
501 Existing solver is structured along the WRONG assumption,
502 that Poly.thy must be the LAST thy among all thys involved -- while the opposite is the case.
504 Preliminary solution: all inappropriately located thms are collected in Base_Tools.thy
506 subsection \<open>Finetunig required for xmldata in kbase\<close>
508 See xmldata https://intra.ist.tugraz.at/hg/isac/rev/5b222a649390
509 and in kbase html-representation generated from these xmldata.
510 Notes in ~~/xmldata/TODO.txt.
513 section \<open>Hints for further development\<close>
516 subsection \<open>Coding standards & some explanations for math-authors\<close>
517 text \<open>copy from doc/math-eng.tex WN.28.3.03
518 WN071228 extended\<close>
520 subsubsection \<open>Identifiers\<close>
521 text \<open>Naming is particularily crucial, because Isabelles name space is global, and isac does
522 not yet use the novel locale features introduces by Isar. For instance, {\tt probe} sounds
523 reasonable as (1) a description in the model of a problem-pattern, (2) as an element of the
524 problem hierarchies key, (3) as a socalled CAS-command, (4) as the name of a related script etc.
525 However, all the cases (1)..(4) require different typing for one and the same
526 identifier {\tt probe} which is impossible, and actually leads to strange errors
527 (for instance (1) is used as string, except in a script addressing a Subproblem).
529 These are the preliminary rules for naming identifiers>
531 \item [elements of a key] into the hierarchy of problems or methods must not contain
532 capital letters and may contain underscrores, e.g. {\tt probe, for_polynomials}.
533 \item [descriptions in problem-patterns] must contain at least 1 capital letter and
534 must not contain underscores, e.g. {\tt Probe, forPolynomials}.
535 \item [CAS-commands] follow the same rules as descriptions in problem-patterns above, thus
536 beware of conflicts~!
537 \item [script identifiers] always end with {\tt Program}, e.g. {\tt ProbeScript}.
541 %WN071228 extended\<close>
543 subsubsection \<open>Rule sets\<close>
544 text \<open>The actual version of the coding standards for rulesets is in {\tt /IsacKnowledge/Atools.ML
545 where it can be viewed using the knowledge browsers.
547 There are rulesets visible to the student, and there are rulesets visible (in general) only for
548 math authors. There are also rulesets which {\em must} exist for {\em each} theory;
549 these contain the identifier of the respective theory (including all capital letters)
550 as indicated by {\it Thy} below.
553 \item [norm\_{\it Thy}] exists for each theory, and {\em efficiently} calculates a
554 normalform for all terms which can be expressed by the definitions of the respective theory
555 (and the respective parents).
556 \item [simplify\_{\it Thy}] exists for each theory, and calculates a normalform for all terms
557 which can be expressed by the definitions of the respective theory (and the respective parents)
558 such, that the rewrites can be presented to the student.
559 \item [calculate\_{\it Thy}] exists for each theory, and evaluates terms with
560 numerical constants only (i.e. all terms which can be expressed by the definitions of
561 the respective theory and the respective parent theories). In particular, this ruleset includes
562 evaluating in/equalities with numerical constants only.
563 WN.3.7.03: may be dropped due to more generality: numericals and non-numericals
564 are logically equivalent, where the latter often add to the assumptions
565 (e.g. in Check_elementwise).
568 The above rulesets are all visible to the user, and also may be input;
569 thus they must be contained in {\tt Theory_Data} (KEStore_Elems.add_rlss,
570 KEStore_Elems.get_rlss). All these rulesets must undergo a preparation
571 using the function {\tt prep_rls'}, which generates a script for stepwise rewriting etc.
572 The following rulesets are used for internal purposes and usually invisible to the (naive) user:
579 {\tt Rule_Set.append_rules, Rule_Set.merge, remove_rls} TODO
582 subsection \<open>get proof-state\<close>
584 Re: [isabelle] Programatically get "this"
585 ----------------------------------------------------
586 So here is my (Makarius') version of your initial example, following these principles:
592 val ctxt = @{context};
595 Name_Space.full_name (Proof_Context.naming_of ctxt) (Binding.name Auto_Bind.thisN);
596 val this = #thms (the (Proof_Context.lookup_fact ctxt this_name));
601 subsection \<open>write Specification to jEdit\<close>
603 Re: [isabelle] Printing terms with type annotations
604 ----------------------------------------------------
605 On 06/02/2019 17:52, Moa Johansson wrote:
607 > I’m writing some code that should create a snippet of Isar script.
609 This is how Sledgehammer approximates this:
611 http://isabelle.in.tum.de/repos/isabelle/file/Isabelle2018/src/HOL/Tools/Sledgehammer/sledgehammer_isar_proof.ML#l299
613 (The module name already shows that the proper terminology is "Isar
614 proof" (or "Isar proof text"). Proof scripts are a thing from the past,
615 before Isar. You can emulate old-style proof scripts via a sequence of
616 'apply' commands, but this is improper Isar.)
618 Note that there is no standard function in Isabelle/Pure, because the
619 problem to print just the right amount of type information is very
620 complex and not fully solved. One day, after 1 or 2 rounds of
621 refinements over the above approach, it might become generally available.
623 subsection \<open>follow Isabelle conventions (*Does not yet work in Isabelle2018\<close>
625 isabelle update -u path_cartouches
626 isabelle update -u inner_syntax_cartouches
628 section \<open>Questions to Isabelle experts\<close>
631 \item ad ERROR Undefined fact "all_left" in Test_Isac: error-pattern.sml
632 Undefined fact: "xfoldr_Nil" inssort.sml
633 (* probably two different reasons:
635 (*WN0509 compare PolyEq.all_left "[|Not(b=!=0)|] ==> (a = b) = (a - b = 0)"*)
636 all_left: "[|Not(b=!=0)|] ==> (a=b) = (a+(-1)*b=0)" and
639 (*WN0509 compare LinEq.all_left "[|Not(b=!=0)|] ==> (a=b) = (a+(-1)*b=0)"*)
640 all_left: "[|Not(b=!=0)|] ==> (a = b) = (a - b = 0)" and
642 test/../partial_fractions.sml
643 (*[7], Met*)val (p,_,f,nxt,_,pt) = me nxt p [] pt; (*nxt = Apply_Method ["PolyEq", "normalise_poly"])*)
644 (*[7, 1], Frm*)val (p,_,f,nxt,_,pt) = me nxt p [] pt; (*nxt = Rewrite ("all_left", "\<not> ?b =!= 0 \<Longrightarrow> (?a = ?b) = (?a - ?b = 0)"))*)
646 test/../mathengine-stateless.sml
647 (*if ThmC.string_of_thm @ {thm rnorm_equation_add} = "\<not> ?b =!= 0 \<Longrightarrow> (?a = ?b) = (?a + - 1 * ?b = 0)"
648 then () else error "string_of_thm changed";*)
650 (*---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*)
652 primrec xfoldr :: "('a \<Rightarrow> 'b \<Rightarrow> 'b) \<Rightarrow> 'a xlist \<Rightarrow> 'b \<Rightarrow> 'b" where
653 xfoldr_Nil: "xfoldr f {|| ||} = id" |
654 xfoldr_Cons: "xfoldr f (x @# xs) = f x \<circ> xfoldr f xs"
657 srls = Rule_Set.empty, calc = [], rules = [
658 Rule.Thm ("xfoldr_Nil",(*num_str*) @{thm xfoldr_Nil} (* foldr ?f [] = id *)),
662 \item ?OK Test_Isac_Short with
663 LI.by_tactic tac (get_istate_LI pt p, get_ctxt_LI pt p) ptp
665 LI.by_tactic tac (Istate.empty, ContextC.empty) ptp
668 \item test from last CS with outcommented re-def of code ->
669 -> \<open>further tests additional to src/.. files\<close>
670 ADDTESTS/redefined-code.sml
672 \item efb749b79361 Test_Some_Short.thy has 2 errors, which disappear in thy ?!?:
673 ML_file "Interpret/error-pattern.sml" Undefined fact: "all_left"
674 ML_file "Knowledge/inssort.sml" Undefined fact: "xfoldr_Nil"
676 \item what is the actual replacement of "hg log --follow" ?
678 \item how HANDLE these exceptions, e.g.:
679 Syntax.read_term ctxt "Randbedingungen y 0 = (0::real), y L = 0, M_b 0 = 0, M_b L = 0]"
682 Failed to parse term"
684 \item how cope with "exception Size raised (line 171 of "./basis/LibrarySupport.sml")"
685 e.g. in test/Interpret/lucas-interpreter.sml
691 section \<open>For copy & paste\<close>
709 subsection \<open>xxx\<close>
710 subsubsection \<open>xxx\<close>