accessors

tesi/tesi_unicode.org

@@ -439,7 +439,6 @@ Our algorithm respects the following correctness statement:
  v_S \approx v_T \in S \;\land\; C_S(v_S) \neq C_T(v_T)
 \end{align*}
 * Background
-  
 ** OCaml
 Objective Caml (OCaml) is a dialect of the ML (Meta-Language)
 family of programming that features with other dialects of ML, such
@@ -449,9 +448,10 @@ provides many advantages with respect to static type systems of traditional impe
 oriented language such as C, C++ and Java, such as:
     - Polymorphism: in certain scenarios a function can accept more than one
       type for the input parameters. For example a function that computes the length of a
-      list doesn't need to inspect the type of the elements of the list and for this reason
+      list doesn't need to inspect the type of the elements and for this reason
       a List.length function can accept lists of integers, lists of strings and in general
-      lists of any type. Such languages offer polymorphic functions through subtyping at
+      lists of any type. JVM languages offer polymorphic functions and
+      classes through subtyping at
       runtime only, while other languages such as C++ offer polymorphism through compile
       time templates and function overloading.
       With the Hindley-Milner type system each well typed function can have more than one
@@ -459,8 +459,8 @@ oriented language such as C, C++ and Java, such as:
       For example the principal type of the List.length function is "For any /a/, function from
       list of /a/ to /int/" and /a/ is called the /type parameter/.
     - Strong typing: Languages such as C and C++ allow the programmer to operate on data
-      without considering its type, mainly through pointers. Other languages such as C#
+      without considering its type, mainly through pointers[CIT]. Other languages such as Swift
-      and Go allow type erasure so at runtime the type of the data can't be queried.
+      and Java performs type erasure[CIT] so at runtime the type of the data can't be queried.
       In the case of programming languages using an Hindley-Milner type system the
       programmer is not allowed to operate on data by ignoring or promoting its type.
     - Type Inference: the principal type of a well formed term can be inferred without any
@@ -479,10 +479,10 @@ oriented language such as C, C++ and Java, such as:
 Moreover ML languages are functional, meaning that functions are
 treated as first class citizens and variables are immutable,
 although mutable statements and imperative constructs are permitted.
-In addition to that  features an object system, that provides
+In addition to that OCaml features an object system, that provides
 inheritance, subtyping and dynamic binding, and modules, that
 provide a way to encapsulate definitions. Modules are checked
-statically and can be reifycated through functors.
+statically and can be reifycated through functors[CIT].
 
 ** Compiling OCaml code
 
@@ -496,17 +496,17 @@ is trasformed into an untyped syntax tree. Code with syntax errors is
 rejected at this stage.
 After that the AST is processed by the type checker that performs
 three steps at once:
-- type inference, using the classical /Algorithm W/
+- type inference, using the classical /Algorithm W/[CIT]
 - perform subtyping and gathers type information from the module system
 - ensures that the code obeys the rule of the OCaml type system
 At this stage, incorrectly typed code is rejected. In case of success,
 the untyped AST in trasformed into a /Typed Tree/.
 After the  typechecker has proven that the program is type safe,
 the  compiler lower the code to /Lambda/, an s-expression based
-language that assumes that its input has already been proved safe.
+language that assumes that its input has already been proved safe[CIT].
 After the  Lambda pass, the Lambda code is either translated into
 bytecode or goes through a series of optimization steps performed by
-the /Flambda/ optimizer before being translated into assembly.
+the /Flambda/ optimizer[CIT] before being translated into assembly.
 \begin{comment}
 TODO: Talk about flambda passes?
 \end{comment}
@@ -549,6 +549,7 @@ set to 0.
 \begin{comment}
 https://dev.realworld.org/compiler-backend.html
 CITE: realworldocaml
+[CIT]
 \end{comment}
 A Lambda code target file is produced by the compiler and consists of a
 single s-expression. Every s-expression consist of /(/, a sequence of
@@ -577,7 +578,8 @@ let test = function
   | Fred -> "fred"
 #+END_SRC
 The Lambda output for this code can be obtained by running the
-compiler with the /-dlambda/ flag:
+compiler with the /-drawlambda/ flag or in a more compact form with
+the /-dlambda/ flag:
 #+BEGIN_SRC 
 (setglobal Prova!
   (let
@@ -590,9 +592,9 @@ compiler with the /-dlambda/ flag:
           case int 3: "fred")))
     (makeblock 0 test/85)))
 #+END_SRC
-As outlined by the example, the /makeblock/ directive is responsible
+As outlined by the example, the /makeblock/ directive allows to
-for allocating low level OCaml values and every constant constructor
+allocate low level OCaml values and every constant constructor
-ot the algebraic type /t/ is stored in memory as an integer.
+of the algebraic type /t/ is stored in memory as an integer.
 The /setglobal/ directives declares a new binding in the global scope:
 Every concept of modules is lost at this stage of compilation.
 The pattern matching compiler uses a jump table to map every pattern
@@ -624,7 +626,7 @@ are mapped to cons cell that are accessed using the /tag/ directive.
           case tag 1: (if (!= (field 0 param/90) 0) "fred" "baz"))))
     (makeblock 0 test/89)))
 #+END_SRC
-In the Lambda language are several numeric types:
+In the Lambda language defines several numeric types:
 - integers: that us either 31 or 63 bit two's complement arithmetic
   depending on system word size, and also wrapping on overflow
 - 32 bit and 64 bit integers: that use 32-bit and 64-bit two's complement arithmetic
@@ -633,14 +635,12 @@ In the Lambda language are several numeric types:
 - floats: that use IEEE754 double-precision (64-bit) arithmetic with
   the addition of the literals /infinity/, /neg_infinity/ and /nan/.
 \\
-The are various numeric operations defined:
+The are various numeric operations:
-
 - Arithmetic operations: +, -, *, /, % (modulo), neg (unary negation)
 - Bitwise operations: &, |, ^, <<, >> (zero-shifting), a>> (sign extending)
 - Numeric comparisons: <, >, <=, >=, ==
 
 *** Functions
-
 Functions are defined using the following syntax, and close over all
 bindings in scope: (lambda (arg1 arg2 arg3) BODY)
 and are applied using the following syntax: (apply FUNC ARG ARG ARG)
@@ -663,8 +663,7 @@ Spiega che la sintassi che supporti e` quella nella BNF
 
 
 ** Pattern matching
-
+Pattern matching is a widely adopted mechanism to interact with ADT[CIT].
-Pattern matching is a widely adopted mechanism to interact with ADT.
 C family languages provide branching on predicates through the use of
 if statements and switch statements.
 Pattern matching on the other hands express predicates through
@@ -673,7 +672,7 @@ arbitrary shapes. One common example of pattern matching is the use of regular
 expressions on strings.  provides pattern matching on ADT and
 primitive data types.
 The result of a pattern matching operation is always one of:
-- this value does not match this pattern”
+- this value does not match this pattern
 - this value matches this pattern, resulting the following bindings of
   names to values and the jump to the expression pointed at the
   pattern.
@@ -687,54 +686,42 @@ match color with
 | Green -> print "green"
 | _ -> print "white or black"
 #+END_SRC
-
+Pattern matching clauses provide tokens to express data destructoring.
- provides tokens to express data destructoring.
 For example we can examine the content of a list with pattern matching
-
 #+BEGIN_SRC 
-
 begin match list with
 | [ ] -> print "empty list"
 | element1 :: [ ] -> print "one element"
 | (element1 :: element2) :: [ ] -> print "two elements"
 | head :: tail-> print "head followed by many elements"
 #+END_SRC
-\\
 Parenthesized patterns, such as the third one in the previous example,
 matches the same value as the pattern without parenthesis.
 \\
 The same could be done with tuples
 #+BEGIN_SRC 
-
 begin match tuple with
 | (Some _, Some _) -> print "Pair of optional types"
 | (Some _, None) | (None, Some _) -> print "Pair of optional types, one of which is null"
 | (None, None) -> print "Pair of optional types, both null"
 #+END_SRC
-
 The pattern pattern₁ |  pattern₂ represents the logical "or" of the
-two patterns pattern₁ and pattern₂. A value matches pattern₁ |
+two patterns, pattern₁ and pattern₂. A value matches /pattern₁ | pattern₂/ if it matches pattern₁ or pattern₂.
-pattern₂ if it matches pattern₁ or pattern₂.
 \\
 Pattern clauses can make the use of /guards/ to test predicates and
 variables can captured (binded in scope).
-
 #+BEGIN_SRC 
-
 begin match token_list with
 | "switch"::var::"{"::rest -> ...
 | "case"::":"::var::rest when is_int var -> ...
 | "case"::":"::var::rest when is_string var -> ...
 | "}"::[ ] -> ...
 | "}"::rest -> error "syntax error: " rest
-
 #+END_SRC
-\\
 Moreover, the  pattern matching compiler emits a warning when a
 pattern is not exhaustive or some patterns are shadowed by precedent ones.
 
 ** Symbolic execution
-
 Symbolic execution is a widely used techniques in the field of
 computer security.
 It allows to analyze different execution paths of a program
@@ -749,8 +736,12 @@ domain of all possible inputs of a program, detecting infeasible
 paths, dead code and proving that two code segments are equivalent.
 \\
 Let's take as example this signedness bug that was found in the
-FreeBSD kernel and allowed, when calling the getpeername function, to
+FreeBSD kernel [CIT] and allowed, when calling the /getpeername/ function, to
 read portions of kernel memory.
+\begin{comment}
+TODO: controlla paginazione
+\end{comment}
+\clearpage
 #+BEGIN_SRC
 int compat;
 {
@@ -775,10 +766,11 @@ bad:
     return (error);
 }
 #+END_SRC
-
+The tree of the execution is presented below.
-The tree of the execution when the function is evaluated considering
+It is built by evaluating the function by consider the integer
-/int len/ our symbolic variable α, sa->sa_len as symbolic variable β
+variable /len/ the symbolic variable α, sa->sa_len the symbolic variable β
-and π as the set of constraints on a symbolic variable:
+and π indicates the set of constraints on the symbolic variables.
+The input values to the functions are identified by σ.
 [[./files/symb_exec.png]]
 \begin{comment}
 [1]              compat (...)        { π_{α}: -∞ < α < ∞ }
@@ -793,15 +785,15 @@ We can see that at step 3 the set of possible values of the scrutinee
 α is bigger than the set of possible values of the input σ to the
 /cast/ directive, that is: π_{α} ⊈ π_{σ}. For this reason the /cast/ may fail when α is /len/
 negative number, outside the domain π_{σ}. In C this would trigger undefined behaviour (signed
-overflow) that made the exploitation possible.
+overflow) that made the exploit possible.
-\\
+***  Symbolic Execution in terms of Hoare Logic
-Every step of evaluation can be modelled as the following transition:
+Every step of the evaluation in a symbolic engine can be modelled as the following transition:
 \[
 (π_{σ}, (πᵢ)ⁱ) → (π'_{σ}, (π'ᵢ)ⁱ)
 \]
-if we express the π constraints as logical formulas we can model the
+if we express the π transitions as logical formulas we can model the
 execution of the program in terms of Hoare Logic.
-State of the computation is a Hoare triple {P}C{Q} where P and Q are
+The state of the computation is a Hoare triple {P}C{Q} where P and Q are
 respectively the /precondition/ and the /postcondition/ that
 constitute the assertions of the program. C is the directive being
 executed.
@@ -812,7 +804,8 @@ In the Hoare rules assertions could also take the form of
 | P ::= \forall i. P \vert \exists i. P \vert P_{1} \Rightarrow P_{2}
 where i is a logical variable, but assertions of these kinds increases
 the complexity of the symbolic engine.
-Execution follows the rules of Hoare logic:
+\
+Execution follows the following inference rules:
 - Empty statement :
 \begin{mathpar}
 \infer{ }
@@ -839,7 +832,7 @@ Execution follows the rules of Hoare logic:
 \end{mathpar}
 \\
 - Loop : {P} is the loop invariant. After the loop is finished /P/
-  holds and ¬̸b caused the loop to end.
+  holds and ¬b caused the loop to end.
 \begin{mathpar}
 \infer { \{P \wedge b \}c\{P\} }
 { \{P\}\text{while b do c} \{P \wedge \neg b\} }
@@ -847,14 +840,14 @@ Execution follows the rules of Hoare logic:
 \\
 Even if the semantics of symbolic execution engines are well defined,
 the user may run into different complications when applying such
-analysis to non trivial codebases.
+analysis to non trivial codebases.[CIT]
 For example, depending on the domain, loop termination is not
 guaranteed. Even when termination is guaranteed, looping causes
 exponential branching that may lead to path explosion or state
-explosion.
+explosion.[CIT]
 Reasoning about all possible executions of a program is not always
-feasible and in case of explosion usually symbolic execution engines
+feasible[CIT] and in case of explosion usually symbolic execution engines
-implement heuristics to reduce the size of the search space.
+implement heuristics to reduce the size of the search space.[CIT]
 
 ** Translation validation
 Translators, such as translators and code generators, are huge pieces of
@@ -873,10 +866,97 @@ existing translators that consists of taking the source and the target
 - [ ] Translation validation through symbolic execution
 
 * Translation validation of the Pattern Matching Compiler
+** Accessors
+OCaml encourages widespread usage of composite types to encapsulate
+data. Composite types include /discriminated unions/, of which we have
+seen different use cases, and /records/, that are a form of /product
+types/ [CIT] such as /structures/ in C. \\
+\begin{minipage}{0.6\linewidth}
+\begin{verbatim}
+struct Shape {
+    int centerx;
+    int centery;
+    enum ShapeKind kind;
+    union {
+        struct { int side; };
+        struct { int length, height; };
+        struct { int radius; };
+    };
+};
+\end{verbatim}
+\end{minipage}
+\hfill
+\begin{minipage}{0.4\linewidth}
+\begin{verbatim}
+type shape = {
+    x:int;
+    y:int;
+    kind:shapekind
+}
+and shapekind 
+      | Square of int
+      | Rect of int * int
+      | Circle of int
+\end{verbatim}
+\end{minipage}
+\begin{comment}
+TODO: metti linea qualcosa a dividere
+\end{comment}
+Primitive OCaml datatypes include aggregate types in the form of
+/tuples/ and /lists/. Other aggregate types are built using module
+functors. [CIT]
+Low level /Lambda/ untyped constructors of the form
+#+BEGIN_SRC 
+type t = Constant | Cell of int * t 
+#+END_SRC
+provides enough flexibility to encode source higher kinded types.
+This shouldn't surprise because the /Lambda/ language consists of
+s-expressions. The /field/ operation allows to address a /Cell/ value
+and the expressions /(field 0 x)/ and /(field 1 x)/ are equivalent to
+the Lisp primitives /(car x)/ and /(cdr x)/ respectively.
+\begin{comment}
+(* that can also be written *)
+let value = List.cons 1 
+            @@ List.cons 2
+            @@ List.cons 3 [] 
+\end{comment}
+\begin{minipage}{0.3\linewidth}
+\begin{verbatim}
+let value =  1 :: 2 :: 3 :: []
+\end{verbatim}
+\end{minipage}
+\hfill
+\begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}
+\begin{verbatim}
+   (field 0 x) = 1
+   (field 0 (field 1 x)) = 2
+   (field 0 (field 1 (field 1 x)) = 3
+   (field 0 (field 1 (field 1 (field 1 x)) = []
+\end{verbatim}
+\end{minipage} \\
+\\
+We can represent the concrete value of a higher kinded type as a flat
+list of cells.
+In the prototype we call this "view" into the value of a datatype the
+\emph{accessor} /a/.
+| a ::= Here \vert n.a
+Accessors have some resemblance with the low level /Cell/ values, such
+as the fact that both don't encode type informations; for example the
+accessor of a list of integers is structurally equivalent to the
+accessor of a tuple containing the same elements.
+\\
+We can intuitively think of the /accessor/ as the
+access path to a value that can be reached by deconstructing the
+scrutinee. 
+At the source level /accessors/ are constructed by inspecting the structure of
+the patterns at hand.
+At the target level /accessors/ are constructed by compressing the steps taken by
+the symbolic engine during the evaluation of a value.
+/Accessors/ don't store informations about the concrete value of the scrutinee or
+it's symbolic domain of values.
 
 ** Source program
-
+The OCaml source code of a pattern matching function has the
-The source code of a pattern matching function has the
 following form:
 
 |match variable with
@@ -895,10 +975,10 @@ Pattern matching code could also be written using the more compact form:
 |\vert pattern₃ as var \to expr₃ 
 |⋮
 |\vert pₙ \to exprₙ
-
+\begin{comment}
-
+TODO: paginazione seria per BNF
+\end{comment}
 This BNF grammar describes formally the grammar of the source program:
-
 | start ::= "match" id "with" patterns \vert{} "function" patterns
 | patterns ::= (pattern0\vert{}pattern1) pattern1+
 | ;; pattern0 and pattern1 are needed to distinguish the first case in which
@@ -908,16 +988,17 @@ This BNF grammar describes formally the grammar of the source program:
 | clause ::= lexpr "->" rexpr
 | lexpr ::= rule (ε\vert{}condition)
 | rexpr ::= _code ;; arbitrary code
-| rule ::= wildcard\vert{}variable\vert{}constructor_pattern\vert or_pattern ;;
+| rule ::= wildcard\vert{}variable\vert{}constructor_pattern\vert or_pattern
 | wildcard ::= "_"
 | variable ::= identifier
 | constructor_pattern ::= constructor (rule\vert{}ε) (assignment\vert{}ε)
-| constructor ::= int\vert{}float\vert{}char\vert{}string\vert{}bool \vert{}unit\vert{}record\vert{}exn\vert{}objects\vert{}ref \vert{}list\vert{}tuple\vert{}array\vert{}variant\vert{}parameterized_variant ;;  data types
+| constructor ::= int\vert{}float\vert{}char\vert{}string\vert{}bool \vert{}unit
+| \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad \vert{}record\vert{}exn\vert{}objects\vert{}ref \vert{}list\vert{}tuple\vert{}array\vert{}variant\vert{}parameterized_variant ;;  data types
 | or_pattern ::=  rule ("\vert{}" wildcard\vert{}variable\vert{}constructor_pattern)+
-| condition ::= "when" bexpr 
+| condition ::= "when" b_guard 
 | assignment ::= "as" id
-| bexpr ::= _code ;; arbitrary code
+| b_guard ::= ocaml_expression ;; arbitrary code
-The source program is parsed using the ocaml-compiler-libs library.
+The source program is parsed using the ocaml-compiler-libs [CIT] library.
 The result of parsing, when successful, results in a list of clauses
 and a list of type declarations.
 Every clause consists of three objects: a left-hand-side that is the
@@ -1037,17 +1118,15 @@ program tₛ:
 A sound approach for treating these blackboxes would be to inspect the
 OCaml compiler during translation to Lambda code and extract the
 blackboxes compiled in their Lambda representation.
-This would allow to test for equality with the respective blackbox at
+This would allow to test for structural equality with the counterpart
-the target level.
+Lambda blackboxes at the target level.
 Given that this level of introspection is currently not possibile, we
 decided to restrict the structure of blackboxes to the following (valid) OCaml
 code:
-
 #+BEGIN_SRC 
 external guard : 'a -> 'b = "guard"
 external observe : 'a -> 'b = "observe"
 #+END_SRC 
-
 We assume these two external functions /guard/ and /observe/ with a valid
 type that lets the user pass any number of arguments to them.
 All the guards are of the form \texttt{guard <arg> <arg> <arg>}, where the
@@ -1068,11 +1147,9 @@ let _ = function
 We note that the right hand side of /observe/ is just an arbitrary
 value and in this case just enumerates the order in which expressions
 appear.
-Even if this is an oversimplification of the problem for the
+This oversimplification of the structure of arbitrary code blackboxes
-prototype, it must be noted that at the compiler level we have the
+allows us to test for structural equivalence without querying the
-possibility to compile the pattern clauses in two separate steps so
+compiler during the /TypedTree/ to /Lambda/ translation phase.
-that the guards and right-hand-side expressions are semantically equal
-to their counterparts at the target program level.
 \begin{lstlisting}
 let _ = function
   | K1 -> lambda₀
@@ -1133,6 +1210,7 @@ following four rules:
     \end{equation*}
     where
     \begin{equation*}
+    P' \to L' = 
     \begin{pmatrix}
     p_{1,2} & \cdots & p_{1,n} & → & (let & y₁ & x₁) & l₁ \\
     p_{2,2} & \cdots & p_{2,n} & → & (let & y₂ & x₁) & l₂ \\
@@ -1141,9 +1219,9 @@ following four rules:
     \end{pmatrix}
     \end{equation*}
 
-    That means in every lambda action lᵢ there is a binding of x₁ to the
+    That means in every lambda action lᵢ in the P' → L' matrix there is a binding of x₁ to the
-    variable that appears on the pattern p_{i,1}. Bindings are omitted
+    variable that appears on the pattern p_{i,1}. When there are
-    for wildcard patterns and the lambda action lᵢ remains unchanged.
+    wildcard patterns, bindings are omitted the lambda action lᵢ remains unchanged.
 
 2) Constructor rule: if all patterns in the first column of P are
    constructors patterns of the form k(q₁, q₂, ..., q_{n'}) we define a
@@ -1157,7 +1235,7 @@ following four rules:
                 p ← $q_{i,1}$, $q_{i,2}$, ..., $q_{i,n'}$,  $p_{i,2}$, $p_{i,3}$, ..., $p_{i, n}$
     \end{lstlisting}
    Patterns of the form $q_{i,j}$ matches on the values of the
-   constructor and we define new fresh variables y₁, y₂, ..., yₐ so
+   constructor and we define the variables y₁, y₂, ..., yₐ so
    that the lambda action lᵢ becomes
 
    \begin{lstlisting}[mathescape,columns=fullflexible,basicstyle=\fontfamily{lmvtt}\selectfont,]
@@ -1169,7 +1247,7 @@ following four rules:
    \end{lstlisting}
 
    and the result of the compilation for the set of constructors
-   {c₁, c₂, ..., cₖ} is:
+    ${\{c_{1}, c_{2}, ..., c_{k}\}}$ is:
 
    \begin{lstlisting}[mathescape,columns=fullflexible,basicstyle=\fontfamily{lmvtt}\selectfont,]
        switch x₁ with
@@ -1180,27 +1258,30 @@ following four rules:
           default: exit
    \end{lstlisting}
 \\
+\begin{comment}
+TODO: il tre viene cambiato in uno e la lista divisa. Risolvi.
+\end{comment}
 3) Orpat rule: there are various strategies for dealing with
    or-patterns. The most naive one is to split the or-patterns.
    For example a row p containing an or-pattern:
    \begin{equation*}
-   (p_{i,1}|q_{i,1}|r_{i,1}), p_{i,2}, ..., p_{i,m} → lᵢ
+   (p_{i,1}|q_{i,1}|r_{i,1}), p_{i,2}, ..., p_{i,m} → l
    \end{equation*}
    results in three rows added to the clause matrix
    \begin{equation*}
-   p_{i,1}, p_{i,2}, ..., p_{i,m} → lᵢ \\
+   p_{i,1}, p_{i,2}, ..., p_{i,m} → l \\
    \end{equation*}
    \begin{equation*}
-   q_{i,1}, p_{i,2}, ..., p_{i,m} → lᵢ \\
+   q_{i,1}, p_{i,2}, ..., p_{i,m} → l \\
    \end{equation*}
    \begin{equation*}
-   r_{i,1}, p_{i,2}, ..., p_{i,m} → lᵢ 
+   r_{i,1}, p_{i,2}, ..., p_{i,m} → l 
    \end{equation*}
 4) Mixture rule:
-   When none of the previous rules apply the clause matrix P → L is
+   When none of the previous rules apply the clause matrix ${P\space{}\to\space{}L}$ is
-   split into two clause matrices, the first P₁ → L₁ that is the
+   split into two clause matrices, the first $P_{1}\space\to\space{}L_{1}$ that is the
    largest prefix matrix for which one of the three previous rules
-   apply, and P₂ → L₂ containing the remaining rows. The algorithm is
+   apply, and $P_{2}\space\to\space{}L_{2}$ containing the remaining rows. The algorithm is
    applied to both matrices.
 It is important to note that the application of the decomposition
 algorithm converges. This intuition can be verified by defining the
@@ -1232,41 +1313,6 @@ q_{1,1} & p_{1,2} & \cdots & p_{1,n} → l₁ \\
 \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots →  \vdots \\
 \end{pmatrix}\big\rvert = n
 \end{equation*}
-In our prototype we make use of accessors to encode stored values.
-
-\begin{minipage}{0.6\linewidth}
-\begin{verbatim}
-
-let value =  1 :: 2 :: 3 :: []
-(* that can also be written *)
-let value = []
-    |> List.cons 3 
-    |> List.cons 2 
-    |> List.cons 1
-\end{verbatim}
-\end{minipage}
-\hfill
-\begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}
-\begin{verbatim}
-
-
-   (field 0 x) = 1
-   (field 0 (field 1 x)) = 2
-   (field 0 (field 1 (field 1 x)) = 3
-   (field 0 (field 1 (field 1 (field 1 x)) = []
-\end{verbatim}
-\end{minipage}
-An \emph{accessor} /a/ represents the
-access path to a value that can be reached by deconstructing the
-scrutinee.
-| a ::= Here \vert n.a
-The above example, in encoded form:
-\begin{verbatim}
-Here = 1
-1.Here = 2
-1.1.Here = 3
-1.1.1.Here = []
-\end{verbatim}
 In our prototype the source matrix mₛ is defined as follows
 | SMatrix mₛ := (aⱼ)^{j∈J}, ((p_{ij})^{j∈J} → bbᵢ)^{i∈I}
 

todo.org

@@ -126,6 +126,7 @@
   + [ ] Line breaks
   + [ ] Esempio full signature match: allinea
   + [ ] correct. stat. di eq. checking: fuori margine
+  + [ ] Minipages: spazio o divisore dalle linee prima e dopo
 - [X] segreteria: tesi inglese
 - [X] Gatti: inglese
 - [X] Gatti: Coppo mio relatore