Commit b3d2ff9b authored by Robbert Krebbers's avatar Robbert Krebbers

Improve solve_proper a bit.

This is very experimental. It should now deal better with stuff like:

  match x with .. end = match y with .. end

In case there is a hypothesis H : R x y, it will try to destruct it.
parent b46746a9
Pipeline #1631 passed with stage
...@@ -260,12 +260,12 @@ favor the second. *) ...@@ -260,12 +260,12 @@ favor the second. *)
Ltac f_equiv := Ltac f_equiv :=
match goal with match goal with
| _ => reflexivity | _ => reflexivity
(* We support matches on both sides, *if* they concern the same (* We support matches on both sides, *if* they concern the same variable, or
variable. variables in some relation. *)
TODO: We should support different variables, provided that we can
derive contradictions for the off-diagonal cases. *)
| |- ?R (match ?x with _ => _ end) (match ?x with _ => _ end) => | |- ?R (match ?x with _ => _ end) (match ?x with _ => _ end) =>
destruct x destruct x
| H : ?R ?x ?y |- ?R2 (match ?x with _ => _ end) (match ?y with _ => _ end) =>
destruct H
(* First assume that the arguments need the same relation as the result *) (* First assume that the arguments need the same relation as the result *)
| |- ?R (?f ?x) (?f _) => apply (_ : Proper (R ==> R) f) | |- ?R (?f ?x) (?f _) => apply (_ : Proper (R ==> R) f)
(* For the case in which R is polymorphic, or an operational type class, (* For the case in which R is polymorphic, or an operational type class,
...@@ -283,14 +283,11 @@ Ltac f_equiv := ...@@ -283,14 +283,11 @@ Ltac f_equiv :=
(* TODO: If some of the arguments are the same, we could also (* TODO: If some of the arguments are the same, we could also
query for "pointwise_relation"'s. But that leads to a combinatorial query for "pointwise_relation"'s. But that leads to a combinatorial
explosion about which arguments are and which are not the same. *) explosion about which arguments are and which are not the same. *)
| |- ?R (?f ?x) (?f _) => | |- ?R (?f ?x) (?f _) => apply (_ : Proper (_ ==> R) f)
apply (_ : Proper (_ ==> R) f) | |- ?R (?f ?x ?y) (?f _ _) => apply (_ : Proper (_ ==> _ ==> R) f)
| |- ?R (?f ?x ?y) (?f _ _) =>
apply (_ : Proper (_ ==> _ ==> R) f)
(* In case the function symbol differs, but the arguments are the same, (* In case the function symbol differs, but the arguments are the same,
maybe we have a pointwise_relation in our context. *) maybe we have a pointwise_relation in our context. *)
| H : pointwise_relation _ ?R ?f ?g |- ?R (?f ?x) (?g ?x) => | H : pointwise_relation _ ?R ?f ?g |- ?R (?f ?x) (?g ?x) => apply H
apply H
end. end.
(** auto_proper solves goals of the form "f _ = f _", for any relation and any (** auto_proper solves goals of the form "f _ = f _", for any relation and any
...@@ -317,7 +314,8 @@ Ltac solve_proper := ...@@ -317,7 +314,8 @@ Ltac solve_proper :=
| |- Proper _ _ => intros ??? | |- Proper _ _ => intros ???
| |- (_ ==> _)%signature _ _ => intros ??? | |- (_ ==> _)%signature _ _ => intros ???
| |- pointwise_relation _ _ _ _ => intros ? | |- pointwise_relation _ _ _ _ => intros ?
end; | |- ?R ?f _ => try let f' := constr:(λ x, f x) in intros ?
end; simpl;
(* Unfold the head symbol, which is the one we are proving a new property about *) (* Unfold the head symbol, which is the one we are proving a new property about *)
lazymatch goal with lazymatch goal with
| |- ?R (?f _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _) (?f _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _) => unfold f | |- ?R (?f _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _) (?f _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _) => unfold f
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment