Open ComFreek opened 3 years ago
Does the view need include Proofs?
my_rule does not have the shape of a simplification rule. Or if it does, it would nonsensically rewrite a ---> a. That's probably causing errors downstream.
If I `include ☞latin:?Proofs in the view, I get
error while adding successfully parsed element latin:/playground?RoleSimplifyBug_view?[latin:/?Proofs]: add error: a declaration for the name [Proofs] already exists
That's the case independent of whether I have a ---> a
or something like a ∘ a ---> a
as my_rule
:
theory RoleSimplifyBugABC =
include ☞latin:?TypedEquality ❙
include ☞latin:?Proofs ❙
my_op : {A: tp} tm A ⟶ tm A ⟶ tm A ❘ # 2 ∘ 3 prec 100 ❙
my_rule : {A: tp,a: tm A} ⊦ my_op A a a ≐ a ❙ // ❘ role Simplify ❙
❚
view RoleSimplifyBug_view : ?RoleSimplifyBugABC -> ?RoleSimplifyBugABC =
include ☞latin:?TypedEquality ❙
include ☞latin:?Proofs ❙
my_op = ?RoleSimplifyBugABC?my_op ❙
my_rule = ?RoleSimplifyBugABC?my_rule ❙
❚
Perhaps we can discuss this tomorrow in our meeting.
The reproducing example below can be found in LATIN2: https://gl.mathhub.info/MMT/LATIN2/-/blob/devel/source/playground.mmt.
@florian-rabe Do you have any idea what the error could be?
This typechecks fine:
When commenting in the
role Simplify
formy_rule
, I get:the view's include errors with
the view's constant assignment errors with