summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorChloe Brown <chloe.brown.00@outlook.com>2025-05-27 18:07:11 +0100
committerChloe Brown <chloe.brown.00@outlook.com>2025-05-27 18:07:11 +0100
commit9d1ecdd0ca556ad1899275bd50dc5468c35f898e (patch)
treeda6846c65c4f485864eac36ea6087ce0b2e61424
parentd5409dd63799c494539497444313b1a7c08b8c8a (diff)
Describe why composing programs could work.
-rw-r--r--sec/reducer.ltx11
1 files changed, 10 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/sec/reducer.ltx b/sec/reducer.ltx
index b1c597a..d7e7344 100644
--- a/sec/reducer.ltx
+++ b/sec/reducer.ltx
@@ -183,9 +183,18 @@ exactly as expressive as the chosen type, with inductive hypothesis
hypothesis for two reasons: it has a simpler categorical semantics;
many folds do not need the non-destructive argument.
+\subsection{Composing the Two Programs}
+
+Our encoding algorithm introduces many administrative
+\(\beta\)-redexes. We manually reduced many of them in the examples at the
+end of each phase in \cref{M-sec:encoding}. The final desugaring in
+phase seven also introduced many redexes when eliminating \letkw{}
+expressions. Thus the ``efficiency'' of an encoded program can be
+improved by performing the simple partial evaluation of our fuelled
+reducer.
+
\TODO{
\begin{itemize}
- \item describe why encoded terms have lots of beta redices
\item describe potential benefit of composing two programs
\item explain the limitiations of the reducer (e.g. eta and bools)
\end{itemize}