I think my code suffered from a kind of subtle version of the “Goodbye, Lenin” problem — which was hard to tell since I have never run it 🫠🤣

But yesterday I took some time to rearchitect things and I believe I have forestalled any possible version of this. Famous last words, etc., etc.

I’ve also (I believe!) corrected my implementation of observational postponement, which had been way too naïve and wasn’t stable under weakening.

Implementing proof assistants is really arcane, isn’t it? If I were reading this post as someone inexperienced in this area I would think it was gobbledygook.
@jonmsterling so now i am curious: what is the 'goodbye lenin' problem? (an internet search seems to turn up nothing fitting)

@stuebinm It's an allusion, made by @pigworker, to the film “Goodbye, Lenin” which concerns a patriotic/civic-minded woman in East Germany who fell into a coma just before the fall of the Berlin Wall, and then how when she wakes up her son tries to protect her from the shock by creating fake news reels and so on that perpetuate the illusion that the DDR had kept on going.

In the context of proof assistants, what it refers to is that you may evaluate some terms at one point in time, and in doing so produce closures that capture the state of knowledge at the time they were frozen, and if you are not careful to "refresh" old things against the current state (which may have new solutions to various problems) you can run into trouble.