Major Section: EVENTS
Examples: (set-measure-function nqthm::count)Note: This is an event! It does not print the usual event summary but nevertheless changes the ACL2 logical world and is so recorded.
General Form: (set-measure-function name)where
name
is a function symbol of one argument. This macro is
equivalent to (table acl2-defaults-table :measure-function 'name)
,
which is also an event (see table), but no output results from
a set-measure-function
event.
This event sets the default measure function to name
. Subsequently,
if a recursively defined function is submitted to defun
with no
explicitly given :measure
argument, defun
``guesses'' the measure
(name var)
, where name
is the then current default measure function
and var
is the first formal found to be tested along every branch
and changed in every recursive call.
Major Section: EVENTS
Note: This is an event! It does not print the usual event summary but nevertheless changes the ACL2 logical world and is so recorded.
Because the variable symbol STATE
denotes the ``current ACL2
state,'' ACL2 treats the symbol very restrictively when it occurs as
a formal parameter of a defined function. The novice user, who is
unlikely to be aware of the special status of that symbol, is
likely to be confused when error messages about STATE
are printed
in response to the innocent choice of that symbol as a formal
variable. Therefore the top-level ACL2 loop can operate in a mode
in which STATE
is simply disallowed as a formal parameter.
For a discussion of STATE
, See state. Roughly speaking, at
the top-level, the ``current ACL2 state'' is denoted by the variable
symbol STATE
. Only the current state may be passed into a
function expecting a state as an argument. Furthermore, the name of
the formal parameter into which the current state is passed must be
STATE
and nothing but the current state may be passed into a
formal of that name. Therefore, only certain access and change
functions can use that formal -- namely with a STATE
formal --
and if any such function produces a new state it becomes the
``current state'' and must be passed along in the STATE
position
thereafter. Thus, ACL2 requires that the state be single-threaded.
This, in turn, allows us to represent only one state at a time and
to produce new states from it destructively in a von Neumaneque
fashion. The syntactic restrictions on the variable STATE
are
enforced by the translate mechanism (see trans and see term) when
terms are read.
To prevent the novice user from seeing messages prohibiting certain
uses of the variable symbol STATE
ACL2 has a mode in which it
simply disallows the use of that symbol as a formal parameter. Use of
the symbol causes a simple error message. The system is initially
in that mode.
To get out of that mode, execute:
:set-state-ok tIt is not recommended that you do this until you have read the documentation of
STATE
.
To enter the mode in which use of state
is prohibited as a formal
parameter, do:
:set-state-ok nil
The mode is stored in the defaults table, See acl2-defaults-table.
Thus, the mode may be set locally in books.
Major Section: EVENTS
Example Forms: try guard verification? (set-verify-guards-eagerness 0) ; no, unless :verify-guards t (set-verify-guards-eagerness 1) ; yes if a :guard is supplied (set-verify-guards-eagerness 2) ; yes, unless :verify-guards nilNote: This is an event! It does not print the usual event summary but nevertheless changes the ACL2 logical world and is so recorded.
General Form: (set-verify-guards-eagerness n)where
n
is a variable-free term that evaluates to 0
, 1
, or
2
. This macro is equivalent to
(table acl2-defaults-table :verify-guards-eagerness term).However, unlike that simple call of the
table
event function
(see table), no output results from a
set-verify-guards-eagerness
event.
Set-verify-guards-eagerness
may be thought of as an event that
merely sets a flag to 0
, 1
, or 2
. The flag is used by
certain defun
events to determine whether guard verification is
tried. The flag is irrelevant to those defun
events in
:
program
mode and to those defun
events in which an explicit
:
verify-guards
setting is provided among the xargs
. In the
former case, guard verification is not done because it can only be
done when logical functions are being defined. In the latter case,
the explicit :
verify-guards
setting determines whether guard
verification is tried. So consider a :
logic
mode defun
in
which no :
verify-guards
setting is provided. Is guard
verification tried? The answer depends on the eagerness setting as
follows. If the eagerness is 0
, guard verification is not tried.
If the eagerness is 1
, it is tried iff a :
guard
is explicitly
provided in the defun
. If the eagerness is 2
, guard
verification is tried.
The default behavior of the system is as though the
:verify-guards-eagerness
is 1
.
Major Section: EVENTS
Examples: (set-well-founded-relation lex2)provided
lex2
has been proved to be a well-founded relation
(see well-founded-relation). Note: This is an event! It does
not print the usual event summary but nevertheless changes the ACL2
logical world and is so recorded.
General Form: (set-well-founded-relation rel)where
rel
has been proved to be a well-founded relation on objects
satisfying some predicate, mp
, as described in the documentation for
well-founded-relation. This macro is equivalent to
(table acl2-defaults-table :well-founded-relation 'rel)
.
This event sets the default well-founded relation to be that imposed
on mp
-measures by the relation rel
. Subsequently, if a recursively
defined function is submitted to defun
with no explicitly given
:
well-founded-relation
argument, defun
uses the default relation,
rel
, and the associated domain predicate mp
used in its
well-foundedness theorem. That is, the termination conditions
generated will require proving that the measure used by the defun
is
an mp
-measure and that in every recursive call the measure of the
arguments decreases according to rel
.
Major Section: EVENTS
Examples: (table tests 1 '(...)) ; set contents of tests[1] to '(...) (table tests 25) ; get contents of tests[25] (table tests) ; return table tests as an alist (table tests nil nil :clear) ; clear table tests (table tests nil (foo 7) :clear) ; set table tests to (foo 7) (table tests nil nil :guard) ; fetch the table guard (table tests nil nil :guard term) ; set the table guardwhereGeneral Form: (table table-name key-term value-term op term)
table-name
is a symbol that is the name of a (possibly new)
table, key-term
and value-term
, if present, are arbitrary terms
involving (at most) the single variable world
, op
, if present, is
one of the table operations below, and term
, if present, is a term.
Table
returns an acl2 ``error triple.'' The effect of table
on state
depends on op
and how many arguments are presented. Some
invocations actually have no effect on the ACL2 world and hence an
invocation of table
is not always an ``event''. We explain below,
after giving some background information.
The ACL2 system provides ``tables'' by which the user can associate
one object with another. Tables are in essence just conventional
association lists -- lists of pairs -- but the ACL2 environment
provides a means of storing these lists in the ``ACL2 world'' of the
current state
. The ACL2 user could accomplish the same ends by
using ACL2 ``global variables;'' however, limitations on global
variable names are imposed to insure ACL2's soundness. By
convention, no table is important to ACL2's soundness, even though
some features of the system use tables, and the user is invited to
make free use of tables. Because tables are stored in the ACL2
world they are restored by include-book
and undone by :
ubt
. many
users of Nqthm requested a facility by which user data could be
saved in Nqthm ``lib files'' and tables are ACL2's answer to that
request.
Abstractly, each table is an association list mapping ``keys'' to
``values.'' In addition, each table has a ``:guard
,'' which is a
term that must be true of any key and value used. By setting the
:guard
on a table you may enforce an invariant on the objects in the
table, e.g., that all keys are positive integers and all values are
symbols. Each table has a ``name,'' which must be a symbol. Given
a table name, there are six operations one might perform on the
table.
:put
-- associate a value with a key (possibly changing the value
currently associated with that key).
:get
-- retrieve the value associated with a key (or nil if no
value has been associated with that key).
:alist
-- return an alist showing all keys and non-nil values in
the table.
:clear
-- clear the table (so that every value is nil), or if val
is supplied then set table to that value (which must be an alist).
:guard
-- fetch or set the :guard of the table.
When the operations above suggest that the table or its :guard
are
modified, what is actually meant is that the current state is
redefined so that in it, the affected table name has the appropriate
properties. in such cases, the table form is an event.
Table
forms are commonly typed by the user while interacting with
the system. :Put
and :get
forms are especially common. Therefore,
we have adopted a positional syntax that is intended to be
convenient for most applications. Essentially, some operations
admit a ``short form'' of invocation.
(table name key-term value-term :put) ; long form (table name key-term value-term) ; short formevaluates the key- and value-terms, obtaining two objects that we call
key
and value
, checks that the key
and value
satisfy the
:guard
on the named table and then ``modifies'' the named table
so that the value associated with key
is value
. When used like
this, table
is actually an event in the sense that it changes the
ACL2 world. In general, the forms evaluated to obtain the key
and
value
may involve the variable world
, which is bound to the
then-current world during the evaluation of the forms. However, in
the special case that the table in question is named
acl2-defaults-table
, the key
and value
terms may not contain any
variables. Essentially, the keys and values used in events setting
the acl2-defaults-table
must be explicitly given constants.
See acl2-defaults-table.
(table name key-term nil :get) ; long form (table name key-term) ; short formevaluates the key-term (see note below), obtaining an object,
key
,
and returns the value associated with key
in the named table (or,
nil
if there is no value associated with key
). When used like this,
table
is not an event; the value is simply returned.
(table name nil nil :alist) ; long form (table name) ; short formreturns an alist representing the named table; for every key in the table with a non-
nil
associated value, the alist pairs the key
and its value. The order in which the keys are presented is
unspecified. When used like this, table
is not an event; the alist
is simply returned.
(table name nil val :clear)sets the named table to the alist
val
, making the checks that :put
makes for each key and value of val
. When used like this, table
is
an event because it changes the ACL2 world.
(table name nil nil :guard)returns the translated form of the guard of the named table.
(table name nil nil :guard term)Provided the named table is empty and has not yet been assigned a
:guard
and term
(which is not evaluated) is a term that mentions at
most the variables key
, val
and world
, this event sets the :guard
of
the named table to term
. Whenever a subsequent :put
occurs, term
will be evaluated with key
bound to the key argument of the :put
,
val
bound to the val
argument of the :put
, and world
bound to the
then current world. An error will be caused by the :put
if the
result of the evaluation is nil
.
Note that it is not allowed to change the :guard
on a table once it
has been explicitly set. Before the :guard
is explicitly set, it is
effectively just t
. After it is set it can be changed only by
undoing the event that set it. The purpose of this restriction is
to prevent the user from changing the :guards
on tables provided by
other people or the system.
The intuition behind the :guard
mechanism on tables is to enforce
invariants on the keys and values in a table, so that the values,
say, can be used without run-time checking. But if the :guard
of a
table is sensitive to the ACL2 world, it may be possible to cause
some value in the table to cease satisfying the :guard
without doing
any operations on the table. Consider for example the :guard
``no
value in this table is the name of an event.'' As described, that is
enforced each time a value is stored. Thus, 'bang
can be :put
in
the table provided there is no event named bang
. But once it is in
the table, there is nothing to prevent the user from defining bang
as a function, causing the table to contain a value that could not
be :put
there anymore. Observe that not all state-sensitive :guard
s
suffer this problem. The :guard
``every value is an event name''
remains invariant, courtesy of the fact that undoing back through an
event name in the table would necessarily undo the :put
of the name
into the table.
Table
was designed primarily for convenient top-level use. Tables
are not especially efficient. Each table is represented by an alist
stored on the property list of the table name. :Get
is just a
getprop
and assoc-equal
. :Put
does a getprop
to the get the table
alist, a put-assoc-equal
to record the new association, and a
putprop
to store the new table alist -- plus the overhead associated
with :guard
s and undoable events. Note that there are never
duplicate keys in the resulting alist
; in particular, when the
operation :clear
is used to install new alist
, duplicate keys are
removed from that alist.
A table name may be any symbol whatsoever. Symbols already in use
as function or theorem names, for example, may be used as table
names. Symbols in use only as table names may be defined with
defun
, etc. Because there are no restrictions on the user's choice
of table names, table names are not included among the logical
names. Thus, :pe name
will never display a table event (for a
logical name other than :here
). Either :pe name
will display a
``normal'' event such as (defun name ...)
or (defthm name ...)
or
else :pe name
will cause an error indicating that name
is not a
logical name. This happens even if name
is in use as a table name.
Similarly, we do not permit table names to have documentation
strings, since the same name might already have a documentation
string. If you want to associate a documentation string with a
table name that is being used no other way, define the name as a
label and use the :
doc
feature of deflabel
(see deflabel); also see defdoc.
Major Section: EVENTS
Example: (table term-table t '((binary-+ x y) '3 'nil (car x)))
See table for a general discussion of tables and the table
event used to manipulate tables.
The ``term-table
'' is used at the time a meta rule is checked for
syntactic correctness. Each proposed metafunction is run on each
term in this table, and the result in each case is checked to make
sure that it is a termp
in the current world. In each case where
this test fails, a warning is printed.
Whenever a metafunction is run in support of the application of a
meta rule, the result must be a term in the current world. When the
result is not a term, a hard error arises. The term-table
is simply
a means for providing feedback to the user at the time a meta rule
is submitted, warning of the definite possibility that such a hard
error will occur at some point in the future.
The key used in term-table
is arbitrary. The top-most value is
always the one that is used; it is the entire list of terms to be
considered. Each must be a termp
in the current ACL2 world.
Major Section: EVENTS
Example: (theory-invariant (not (and (member-equal '(:rewrite left-to-right) theory) (member-equal '(:rewrite right-to-left) theory))))whereGeneral Forms: (theory-invariant term) ; conjoin a new invariant term or (theory-invariant term key) ; change an existing invariant term
term
is a term that uses no variables other than theory
and
world
, and key
is an arbitrary ``name'' for this invariant. If key
is omitted, an integer is generated and used. Theory-invariant
is
an event that adds to or modifies the table of user-supplied theory
invariants that are checked each time a theory expression is
evaluated.
The theory invariant mechanism is provided via a table
(see table) named theory-invariant-table
. In fact, the
theory-invariant
``event'' is just a macro that expands into a use
of the table
event. More general access to the theory-invariant
table is provided by table
itself. For example, the table can be
inspected or cleared (setting the invariant to t
) with table
.
Theory-invariant-table
maps arbitrary keys to terms mentioning, at
most, the variables theory
and world
. Every time an alleged theory
expression is evaluated, e.g., in the in-theory
event or :
in-theory
hint, each of the terms in theory-invariant-table
is evaluated with
theory
bound to the runic theory (see theories) obtained from
the theory expression and world
bound to the current ACL2 world
(see world). If the result is nil
, a warning message is
printed. Thus, the table can be thought of as a list of conjuncts.
Each term
in the table has a ``name,'' which is just the key under
which the term is stored. When a theory violates the restrictions
specified by some term, both the name and the term are printed. By
calling theory-invariant
with a new term but the same name, you can
overwrite that conjunct of the theory invariant.
Theory invariants are particularly useful in the context of large rule sets intended for re-use. Such sets often contain conflicting rules, e.g., rules that are to be enabled when certain function symbols are disabled, rules that rewrite in opposite directions and thus loop if simultaneously enabled, groups of rules which should be enabled in concert, etc. The developer of such rule sets understands these restrictions and probably documents them. The theory invariant mechanism allows the developer to codify his restrictions so that when they are violated the user is warned.
Since theory invariants are arbitrary terms, macros may be used to express commonly used restrictions. Because theory invariants are a new idea in ACL2, we have only defined one such macro for illustrative purposes. Executing the event
(theory-invariant (incompatible (:rewrite left-to-right) (:rewrite right-to-left)))would subsequently cause a warning message any time the current theory contained both of the two runes shown. Of course, incompatible is just defined as a macro. Its definition may be inspected with
:pe incompatible
.
Note: If the table event is used directly to :put
a term into the
theory invariant table, be aware that the term must be in translated
form. This is enforced by the value
invariant for
theory-invariant-table
. But the upshot of this is that you will be
unable to use macros in theory invariants stored directly with the
:put
table event.
Major Section: EVENTS
Examples: (verify-guards flatten) (verify-guards flatten :hints (("Goal" :use (:instance assoc-of-app))) :otf-flg t :doc "string")See guard for a general discussion of guards. In the General Form above,General Form: (verify-guards name :hints hints :otf-flg otf-flg :doc doc-string)
name
is the name of a :
logic
function
(see defun-mode) or of a theorem or axiom. In the most common
case name
is the name of a function that has not yet had its
guards verified, each
subroutine of which has had its guards verified. hints
and
otf-flg
are as described in the corresponding :
doc
entries;
and doc-string
, if supplied, is a string not beginning with
``:Doc-Section
''. The three keyword arguments above are all
optional. Verify-guards
will attempt to prove that the guard on
the named function implies the guards of all of the subroutines
called in the body of the function. If successful, name
is
considered to have had its guards verified.
If name
is one of several functions in a mutually recursive clique,
verify-guards
will attempt to verify the guards of all of the
functions.
If name
is a theorem or axiom name, verify-guards
verifies the
guards of the associated formula. When a theorem has had its guards
verified then you know that the theorem will evaluate to non-nil
in all Common Lisps, without causing a runtime error (other than possibly
a resource error). In particular, you know that the theorem's validity
does not depend upon ACL2's arbitrary completion of the domains of partial
Common Lisp functions.
For example, if app
is defined as
(defun app (x y) (declare (xargs :guard (true-listp x))) (if (endp x) y (cons (car x) (app (cdr x) y))))then we can verify the guards of
app
and we can prove the theorem:
(defthm assoc-of-app (equal (app (app a b) c) (app a (app b c))))However, if you go into almost any Common Lisp in which
app
is defined
as shown and evaluate
(equal (app (app 1 2) 3) (app 1 (app 2 3)))we get an error or, perhaps, something worse like
nil
! How can
this happen since the formula is an instance of a theorem? It is supposed
to be true!
It happens because the theorem exploits the fact that ACL2 has completed
the domains of the partially defined Common Lisp functions like car
and cdr
, defining them to be nil
on all non-conses. The formula
above violates the guards on app
. It is therefore ``unreasonable''
to expect it to be valid in Common Lisp.
But the following formula is valid in Common Lisp:
(if (and (true-listp a) (true-listp b)) (equal (app (app a b) c) (app a (app b c))) t)That is, no matter what the values of
a
, b
and c
the formula
above evaluates to t
in all Common Lisps (unless the Lisp engine runs out
of memory or stack computing it). Furthermore the above formula is a theorem:
(defthm guarded-assoc-of-app (if (and (true-listp a) (true-listp b)) (equal (app (app a b) c) (app a (app b c))) t))This formula,
guarded-assoc-of-app
, is very easy to prove from
assoc-of-app
. So why prove it? The interesting thing about
guarded-assoc-of-app
is that we can verify the guards of the
formula. That is, (verify-guards guarded-assoc-of-app)
succeeds.
Note that it has to prove that if a
and b
are true lists then
so is (app a b)
to establish that the guard on the outermost app
on the left is satisfied. By verifying the guards of the theorem we
know it will evaluate to true in all Common Lisps. Put another way,
we know that the validity of the formula does not depend on ACL2's
completion of the partial functions or that the formula is ``well-typed.''
One last complication: The careful reader might have thought we could
state guarded-assoc-of-app
as
(implies (and (true-listp a) (true-listp b)) (equal (app (app a b) c) (app a (app b c))))rather than using the
if
form of the theorem. We cannot! The
reason is technical: implies
is defined as a function in ACL2.
When it is called, both arguments are evaluated and then the obvious truth
table is checked. That is, implies
is not ``lazy.'' Hence, when
we write the guarded theorem in the implies
form we have to prove
the guards on the conclusion without knowing that the hypothesis is true.
It would have been better had we defined implies
as a macro that
expanded to the if
form, making it lazy. But we did not and after
we introduced guards we did not want to make such a basic change.
Recall however that verify-guards
is almost always used to verify
the guards on a function definition rather than a theorem. We now
return to that discussion.
Because name
is not uniquely associated with the verify-guards
event
(it necessarily names a previously defined function) the
documentation string, doc-string
, is not stored in the
documentation data base. Thus, we actually prohibit doc-string
from having the form of an ACL2 documentation string;
see doc-string.
Verify-guards
must often be used when the value of a recursive call
of a defined function is given as an argument to a subroutine that
is guarded. An example of such a situation is given below. Suppose
app
(read ``append'') has a guard requiring its first argument to be
a true-listp
. Consider
(defun rev (x) (declare (xargs :guard (true-listp x))) (cond ((endp x) nil) (t (app (rev (cdr x)) (list (car x))))))Observe that the value of a recursive call of
rev
is being passed
into a guarded subroutine, app
. In order to verify the guards of
this definition we must show that (rev (cdr x))
produces a
true-listp
, since that is what the guard of app
requires. How do we
know that (rev (cdr x))
is a true-listp
? The most elegant argument
is a two-step one, appealing to the following two lemmas: (1) When x
is a true-listp
, (cdr x)
is a true-listp
. (2) When z
is a
true-listp
, (rev z)
is a true-listp
. But the second lemma is a
generalized property of rev
, the function we are defining. This
property could not be stated before rev
is defined and so is not
known to the theorem prover when rev
is defined.
Therefore, we might break the admission of rev
into three steps:
define rev
without addressing its guard verification, prove some
general properties about rev
, and then verify the guards. This can
be done as follows:
(defun rev (x) (declare (xargs :guard (true-listp x) :verify-guards nil)) ; Note this additional xarg. (cond ((endp x) nil) (t (app (rev (cdr x)) (list (car x))))))The ACL2 system can actually admit the original definition of(defthm true-listp-rev (implies (true-listp x2) (true-listp (rev x2))))
(verify-guards rev)
rev
, verifying the guards as part of the defun
event. The
reason is that, in this particular case, the system's heuristics
just happen to hit upon the lemma true-listp-rev
. But in many
more complicated functions it is necessary for the user to formulate
the inductively provable properties before guard verification is
attempted.
Major Section: EVENTS
Examples: (verify-termination fact) (verify-termination fact (declare (xargs :guard (and (integerp x) (>= x 0)))))whereGeneral Forms: (verify-termination fn dcl ... dcl) (verify-termination (fn1 dcl ... dcl) (fn2 dcl ... dcl) ...)
fn
and the fni
are function symbols having :
program
mode
(see defun-mode) and all of the dcl
s are either declare
forms or documentation strings. The first form above is an
abbreviation for
(verify-termination (fn dcl ... dcl))so we limit our discussion to the second form. Each of the
fni
must be in the same clique of mutually recursively defined
functions, but not every function in the clique need be among the
fni
.
Verify-termination
attempts to establish the admissibility of the
fni
. Verify-termination
retrieves their definitions, creates modified
definitions using the dcl
s supplied above, and resubmits these
definitions. You could avoid using verify-termination
by typing the new
definitions yourself. So in that sense, verify-termination
adds no new
functionality. But if you have prototyped your system in :
program
mode and tested it, you can use verify-termination
to resubmit your
definitions and change their defun-modes to :
logic
, addings
hints without having to retype or recopy the code. You can also add or
modify guards at this time.
The defun
command executed by verify-termination
is obtained
by retrieving the defun
(or mutual-recursion
) command that
introduced the clique in question and then possibly modifying each
definition as follows. Consider a function, fn
, in the clique.
If fn
is not among the fni
above, its definition is left
unmodified. Otherwise, fn
is some fni
and we modify its
definition by inserting into it the corresponding dcl
s listed
with fni
in the arguments to verify-termination
. In addition,
we throw out from the old declarations in fn
the :mode
specification and anything that is specified in the new dcl
s.
For example, suppose that fact
was introduced with:
(defun fact (n) (declare (type integer n) (xargs :mode :program)) (if (zp n) 1 (* n (fact (1- n))))).Suppose later we do
(verify-termination fact)
. Then the
following definition is submitted.
(defun fact (n) (declare (type integer n)) (if (zp n) 1 (* n (fact (1- n))))).Observe that this is the same definition as the original one, except the old specification of the
:mode
has been deleted so that the
defun-mode now defaults to :
logic
. Although the termination
proof succeeds, ACL2 also tries to verify the guard, because we have
(implicitly) provided a guard, namely (integerp n)
, for this
function. (See guard for a general discussion of guards, and
see type-spec for a discussion of how type declarations are
used in guards.) Unfortunately, the guard verification fails,
because the subterm (zp n)
requires that n
be nonnegative, as
can be seen by invoking :args zp
. (For a discussion of termination
issues relating to recursion on the naturals, see zero-test-idioms.)
So we might want to submit
(verify-termination fact (declare (xargs :guard (and (integerp n) (<= 0 n)))))which will submit the definition
(defun fact (n) (declare (xargs :guard (and (integerp n) (<= 0 n)))) (if (zp n) 1 (* n (fact (1- n))))).Observe that the declaration in the
verify-termination
command has
been inserted into the definition. In fact, this command succeeds.