Type error in tip printed from Stainless

[jad-hamza]

In a verification condition on the Stainless side, I have a term that contains this:

if (thiss.order.leq(thiss.array((n - 1))._1, elemRef(0)._1)) {
  Return[(Boolean, SortedArray[K, T], Array[(K, T)]), Unit]((false, thiss, elemRef))
} else {
  Proceed[(Boolean, SortedArray[K, T], Array[(K, T)]), Unit](())
}

After using --debug=tip, we get a tip file where the type instantiations on Return and Proceed are lost, so Inox understands the expression in the tip file as (and this leads to a type error):

if (thiss!108.order!107.leq!6(thiss!108.array!122.arr!2((n!29 - 1))._1!0, elemRef!41.arr!2(0)._1!0)) {
  Return!1[tuple3!0[Boolean, SortedArray!5[K!37, T!91], array!118[tuple2!0[K!37, T!91]]], Cur!0](tuple3!1[Boolean, SortedArray!5[K!37, T!91], array!118[tuple2!0[K!37, T!91]]](false, thiss!108, elemRef!41))
} else {
  Proceed!1[Ret!0, Unit!1](Unit!3)
}

Can we add the type instantiations (with _) in Printer.scala? (If so, what term should I use?) Can Inox parse it back?

[samarion]

Can we add the type instantiations (with _) in Printer.scala? (If so, what term should I use?) Can Inox parse it back?

Yes, you should be able to add the information inside Printer.scala, and you'll need to adapt the parser to handle it as well.

The changes in Printer should take place here. You can use a similar logic to what is used in the case of FunctionInvocation to determine whether to use a qualified identifier (which includes the type annotation).

You'll also need to change the Parser here to support an optional type ascription.

[samarion]

(Small FYI about using TIP: dependent types aren't supported in the format)