[isabelle-dev] Interpretation in arbitrary targets.
florian.haftmann at informatik.tu-muenchen.de
Thu Mar 28 18:03:14 CET 2013
> Right now we should merely have clear terminology in the discussion.
> The language keywords can be finalized later.
Indeed. In this delicate corner, modifying surface syntax makes little
headache. Lets get right the mental model and the internal
> Note that 'interpret' within a local proof context is also without
> subscription -- as a consequence of how that works.
This is one of the reasons why I think having »interpretation« for
non-subscripting interpretations is a good idea.
> I also agree with you now that 'private' should be just about
> superficial name space issues (potentially with notation, i.e. things of
> the "syntax_declaration" category). So it can stay outside of the
> considerations here.
OK. This simplifies the picture again.
So, after these discussions, I would aim for the following:
* Using the existing patches as base, provide »subscription«. Keep
»sublocale« and »interpretation« as legacy.
* Amend the still existing flaws (reinit, subscription in instantiation, …).
* Aim for providing non-subscripting interpretation via
»interpretation«. »interpretation« on the theory level (which is not
possible due to the architecture for the local theories stack) would
then issue a legacy warning and resolve to »subscription«, until this
behaviour and »sublocale« are discontinued in a further iteration.
Let those thoughts sink further few days. If there is no veto until Apr
7th, I would go ahead to turn the patches upstream.
Thank you a lot,
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the isabelle-dev