Skip to content

GitLab

  • Menu
Projects Groups Snippets
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
    • Contribute to GitLab
  • Sign in / Register
  • Iris Iris
  • Project information
    • Project information
    • Activity
    • Labels
    • Members
  • Repository
    • Repository
    • Files
    • Commits
    • Branches
    • Tags
    • Contributors
    • Graph
    • Compare
  • Issues 148
    • Issues 148
    • List
    • Boards
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
  • Merge requests 9
    • Merge requests 9
  • CI/CD
    • CI/CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Schedules
  • Deployments
    • Deployments
    • Environments
    • Releases
  • Monitor
    • Monitor
    • Incidents
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • Value stream
    • CI/CD
    • Repository
  • Wiki
    • Wiki
  • Activity
  • Graph
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Commits
  • Issue Boards
Collapse sidebar
  • Iris
  • IrisIris
  • Issues
  • #241

Closed
Open
Created May 27, 2019 by Dan Frumin@dfruminContributor

"Flattened" introduction patterns for intuitionistic conjunction elimination.

The "flattened" introduction patterns (I don't know the official terminology, but I meant the patterns like (H1 & H2 & H3 &H4)) interact in a weird way with intuitionistic conjunction:

In particular, I would expect to get a P from P ∧ Q ∧ R by iDestruct "H" as "(H&_&_)", but it doesn't work this way.

From iris.proofmode Require Import tactics monpred.
From iris.base_logic Require Import base_logic.
Section base_logic_tests.
  Context {M : ucmraT}.
  Implicit Types P Q R : uPred M.

  Lemma test P Q R : (P ∧ Q ∧ R) -∗ P.
  Proof.
    iIntros "H".
    (* This works fine *)
    iDestruct "H" as "(_ & _ & H)".
    Undo.
    iDestruct "H" as "(_ & H & _)".
    Undo.
    (* This results in an error *)
    Fail iDestruct "H" as "(H & _ & _)".
    (* "Proper" way of doing it *)
    iDestruct "H" as "(H & _)".
    done.
  Qed.
Assignee
Assign to
Time tracking