Skip to content

Conversation

@chenson2018
Copy link
Collaborator

With the somewhat recent change to allow passing arbitrary expressions to grind and other improvements, some cleanup of locally nameless lambda calculus is possible.

@leanprover leanprover deleted a comment from leanprover-radar Jan 8, 2026
@leanprover leanprover deleted a comment from leanprover-radar Jan 8, 2026
@leanprover leanprover deleted a comment from leanprover-radar Jan 8, 2026
@leanprover leanprover deleted a comment from leanprover-radar Jan 8, 2026
@chenson2018
Copy link
Collaborator Author

!radar

@leanprover-radar
Copy link

leanprover-radar commented Jan 8, 2026

Benchmark results for 384d1c6 against ab28b63 are in! @chenson2018

Large changes (1🟥)
  • 🟥 build//instructions: +21.3G (+1.2%)

@chenson2018
Copy link
Collaborator Author

!radar

@leanprover-radar
Copy link

leanprover-radar commented Jan 8, 2026

Benchmark results for 5042047 against ab28b63 are in! @chenson2018

Large changes (1🟥)
  • 🟥 build//instructions: +26.1G (+1.5%)

@chenson2018
Copy link
Collaborator Author

!radar

@leanprover-radar
Copy link

leanprover-radar commented Jan 8, 2026

Benchmark results for 890cc9f against ab28b63 are in! @chenson2018

Medium changes (1🟥)
  • 🟥 build//instructions: +14.0G (+0.8%)

@chenson2018
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Sorry about the benchmarking noise, I made several wrong guesses before I tracked down the main issues. While the overall build is +0.8% I think this is an acceptable tradeoff for some nicer proofs and a +92 −161 diff. (Some files did get faster, so maybe we're close to the margin of error.)

@chenson2018 chenson2018 requested a review from fmontesi January 8, 2026 02:59
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants