tactics.v 20.8 KB
Newer Older
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
1
(* Copyright (c) 2012-2015, Robbert Krebbers. *)
2
(* This file is distributed under the terms of the BSD license. *)
3
(** This file collects general purpose tactics that are used throughout
4
the development. *)
5
6
From Coq Require Import Omega.
From Coq Require Export Psatz.
7
From stdpp Require Export decidable.
8

Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Lemma f_equal_dep {A B} (f g :  x : A, B x) x : f = g  f x = g x.
Proof. intros ->; reflexivity. Qed.
Lemma f_equal_help {A B} (f g : A  B) x y : f = g  x = y  f x = g y.
Proof. intros -> ->; reflexivity. Qed.
Ltac f_equal :=
  let rec go :=
    match goal with
    | _ => reflexivity
    | _ => apply f_equal_help; [go|try reflexivity]
    | |- ?f ?x = ?g ?x => apply (f_equal_dep f g); go
    end in
  try go.

22
23
24
25
26
(** We declare hint databases [f_equal], [congruence] and [lia] and containing
solely the tactic corresponding to its name. These hint database are useful in
to be combined in combination with other hint database. *)
Hint Extern 998 (_ = _) => f_equal : f_equal.
Hint Extern 999 => congruence : congruence.
27
Hint Extern 1000 => lia : lia.
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
28
Hint Extern 1000 => omega : omega.
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
29
30
Hint Extern 1001 => progress subst : subst. (** backtracking on this one will
be very bad, so use with care! *)
31
32
33

(** The tactic [intuition] expands to [intuition auto with *] by default. This
is rather efficient when having big hint databases, or expensive [Hint Extern]
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
34
declarations as the ones above. *)
35
36
Tactic Notation "intuition" := intuition auto.

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
(* [done] can get slow as it calls "trivial". [fast_done] can solve way less
   goals, but it will also always finish quickly. *)
Ltac fast_done :=
  solve [ reflexivity | eassumption | symmetry; eassumption ].
Tactic Notation "fast_by" tactic(tac) :=
  tac; fast_done.

44
(** A slightly modified version of Ssreflect's finishing tactic [done]. It
45
46
47
48
also performs [reflexivity] and uses symmetry of negated equalities. Compared
to Ssreflect's [done], it does not compute the goal's [hnf] so as to avoid
unfolding setoid equalities. Note that this tactic performs much better than
Coq's [easy] tactic as it does not perform [inversion]. *)
49
50
Ltac done :=
  trivial; intros; solve
51
  [ repeat first
52
53
    [ fast_done
    | solve [trivial]
54
55
56
57
58
    | solve [symmetry; trivial]
    | discriminate
    | contradiction
    | solve [apply not_symmetry; trivial]
    | split ]
59
  | match goal with H : ¬_ |- _ => solve [case H; trivial] end ].
60
61
62
Tactic Notation "by" tactic(tac) :=
  tac; done.

63
64
65
66
(** Aliases for trans and etrans that are easier to type *)
Tactic Notation "trans" constr(A) := transitivity A.
Tactic Notation "etrans" := etransitivity.

67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
(** Tactics for splitting conjunctions:

- [split_and] : split the goal if is syntactically of the shape [_ ∧ _]
- [split_ands?] : split the goal repeatedly (perhaps zero times) while it is
  of the shape [_ ∧ _].
- [split_ands!] : works similarly, but at least one split should succeed. In
  order to do so, it will head normalize the goal first to possibly expose a
  conjunction.

Note that [split_and] differs from [split] by only splitting conjunctions. The
[split] tactic splits any inductive with one constructor. *)
78
79
80
81
82
Tactic Notation "split_and" :=
  match goal with
  | |- _  _ => split
  | |- Is_true (_ && _) => apply andb_True; split
  end.
83
84
Tactic Notation "split_and" "?" := repeat split_and.
Tactic Notation "split_and" "!" := hnf; split_and; split_and?.
85

86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
Tactic Notation "destruct_and" "?" :=
  repeat match goal with
  | H : False |- _ => destruct H
  | H : _  _ |- _ => destruct H
  | H : Is_true (bool_decide _) |- _ => apply (bool_decide_unpack _) in H
  | H : Is_true (_ && _) |- _ => apply andb_True in H; destruct H
  end.
Tactic Notation "destruct_and" "!" := progress (destruct_and?).

95
96
97
(** The tactic [case_match] destructs an arbitrary match in the conclusion or
assumptions, and generates a corresponding equality. This tactic is best used
together with the [repeat] tactical. *)
98
99
100
101
102
103
Ltac case_match :=
  match goal with
  | H : context [ match ?x with _ => _ end ] |- _ => destruct x eqn:?
  | |- context [ match ?x with _ => _ end ] => destruct x eqn:?
  end.

104
105
106
107
(** The tactic [unless T by tac_fail] succeeds if [T] is not provable by
the tactic [tac_fail]. *)
Tactic Notation "unless" constr(T) "by" tactic3(tac_fail) :=
  first [assert T by tac_fail; fail 1 | idtac].
108
109
110
111
112
113

(** The tactic [repeat_on_hyps tac] repeatedly applies [tac] in unspecified
order on all hypotheses until it cannot be applied to any hypothesis anymore. *)
Tactic Notation "repeat_on_hyps" tactic3(tac) :=
  repeat match goal with H : _ |- _ => progress tac H end.

114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
(** The tactic [clear dependent H1 ... Hn] clears the hypotheses [Hi] and
their dependencies. *)
Tactic Notation "clear" "dependent" hyp(H1) hyp(H2) :=
  clear dependent H1; clear dependent H2.
Tactic Notation "clear" "dependent" hyp(H1) hyp(H2) hyp(H3) :=
  clear dependent H1 H2; clear dependent H3.
Tactic Notation "clear" "dependent" hyp(H1) hyp(H2) hyp(H3) hyp(H4) :=
  clear dependent H1 H2 H3; clear dependent H4.
Tactic Notation "clear" "dependent" hyp(H1) hyp(H2) hyp(H3) hyp(H4)
  hyp(H5) := clear dependent H1 H2 H3 H4; clear dependent H5.
Tactic Notation "clear" "dependent" hyp(H1) hyp(H2) hyp(H3) hyp(H4) hyp(H5)
  hyp (H6) := clear dependent H1 H2 H3 H4 H5; clear dependent H6.
Tactic Notation "clear" "dependent" hyp(H1) hyp(H2) hyp(H3) hyp(H4) hyp(H5)
  hyp (H6) hyp(H7) := clear dependent H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6; clear dependent H7.
Tactic Notation "clear" "dependent" hyp(H1) hyp(H2) hyp(H3) hyp(H4) hyp(H5)
  hyp (H6) hyp(H7) hyp(H8) :=
  clear dependent H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7; clear dependent H8.
Tactic Notation "clear" "dependent" hyp(H1) hyp(H2) hyp(H3) hyp(H4) hyp(H5)
  hyp (H6) hyp(H7) hyp(H8) hyp(H9) :=
  clear dependent H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8; clear dependent H9.
Tactic Notation "clear" "dependent" hyp(H1) hyp(H2) hyp(H3) hyp(H4) hyp(H5)
  hyp (H6) hyp(H7) hyp(H8) hyp(H9) hyp(H10) :=
  clear dependent H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9; clear dependent H10.

(** The tactic [is_non_dependent H] determines whether the goal's conclusion or
139
hypotheses depend on [H]. *)
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
Tactic Notation "is_non_dependent" constr(H) :=
  match goal with
  | _ : context [ H ] |- _ => fail 1
  | |- context [ H ] => fail 1
  | _ => idtac
  end.

147
148
(** The tactic [var_eq x y] fails if [x] and [y] are unequal, and [var_neq]
does the converse. *)
149
150
151
Ltac var_eq x1 x2 := match x1 with x2 => idtac | _ => fail 1 end.
Ltac var_neq x1 x2 := match x1 with x2 => fail 1 | _ => idtac end.

Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
(** Operational type class projections in recursive calls are not folded back
appropriately by [simpl]. The tactic [csimpl] uses the [fold_classes] tactics
to refold recursive calls of [fmap], [mbind], [omap] and [alter]. A
self-contained example explaining the problem can be found in the following
Coq-club message:

https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/coq-club/2012-10/msg00147.html *)
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
Ltac fold_classes :=
  repeat match goal with
  | |- appcontext [ ?F ] =>
    progress match type of F with
    | FMap _ =>
       change F with (@fmap _ F);
       repeat change (@fmap _ (@fmap _ F)) with (@fmap _ F)
    | MBind _ =>
       change F with (@mbind _ F);
       repeat change (@mbind _ (@mbind _ F)) with (@mbind _ F)
    | OMap _ =>
       change F with (@omap _ F);
       repeat change (@omap _ (@omap _ F)) with (@omap _ F)
    | Alter _ _ _ =>
       change F with (@alter _ _ _ F);
       repeat change (@alter _ _ _ (@alter _ _ _ F)) with (@alter _ _ _ F)
    end
  end.
177
178
179
Ltac fold_classes_hyps H :=
  repeat match type of H with
  | appcontext [ ?F ] =>
180
181
    progress match type of F with
    | FMap _ =>
182
183
       change F with (@fmap _ F) in H;
       repeat change (@fmap _ (@fmap _ F)) with (@fmap _ F) in H
184
    | MBind _ =>
185
186
       change F with (@mbind _ F) in H;
       repeat change (@mbind _ (@mbind _ F)) with (@mbind _ F) in H
187
    | OMap _ =>
188
189
       change F with (@omap _ F) in H;
       repeat change (@omap _ (@omap _ F)) with (@omap _ F) in H
190
    | Alter _ _ _ =>
191
192
       change F with (@alter _ _ _ F) in H;
       repeat change (@alter _ _ _ (@alter _ _ _ F)) with (@alter _ _ _ F) in H
193
194
    end
  end.
195
196
Tactic Notation "csimpl" "in" hyp(H) :=
  try (progress simpl in H; fold_classes_hyps H).
197
Tactic Notation "csimpl" := try (progress simpl; fold_classes).
198
199
Tactic Notation "csimpl" "in" "*" :=
  repeat_on_hyps (fun H => csimpl in H); csimpl.
200

Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
201
(** The tactic [simplify_eq] repeatedly substitutes, discriminates,
202
203
and injects equalities, and tries to contradict impossible inequalities. *)
Tactic Notation "simplify_eq" := repeat
204
  match goal with
205
206
207
208
  | H : _  _ |- _ => by destruct H
  | H : _ = _  False |- _ => by destruct H
  | H : ?x = _ |- _ => subst x
  | H : _ = ?x |- _ => subst x
209
  | H : _ = _ |- _ => discriminate H
210
  | H : _  _ |- _ => apply leibniz_equiv in H
211
212
  | H : ?f _ = ?f _ |- _ => apply (inj f) in H
  | H : ?f _ _ = ?f _ _ |- _ => apply (inj2 f) in H; destruct H
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
213
    (* before [injection] to circumvent bug #2939 in some situations *)
214
  | H : ?f _ = ?f _ |- _ => progress injection H as H
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
215
    (* first hyp will be named [H], subsequent hyps will be given fresh names *)
216
217
218
219
220
  | H : ?f _ _ = ?f _ _ |- _ => progress injection H as H
  | H : ?f _ _ _ = ?f _ _ _ |- _ => progress injection H as H
  | H : ?f _ _ _ _ = ?f _ _ _ _ |- _ => progress injection H as H
  | H : ?f _ _ _ _ _ = ?f _ _ _ _ _ |- _ => progress injection H as H
  | H : ?f _ _ _ _ _ _ = ?f _ _ _ _ _ _ |- _ => progress injection H as H
221
  | H : ?x = ?x |- _ => clear H
222
223
224
225
    (* unclear how to generalize the below *)
  | H1 : ?o = Some ?x, H2 : ?o = Some ?y |- _ =>
    assert (y = x) by congruence; clear H2
  | H1 : ?o = Some ?x, H2 : ?o = None |- _ => congruence
226
227
  | H : @existT ?A _ _ _ = existT _ _ |- _ =>
     apply (Eqdep_dec.inj_pair2_eq_dec _ (decide_rel (@eq A))) in H
228
  end.
229
230
231
Tactic Notation "simplify_eq" "/=" :=
  repeat (progress csimpl in * || simplify_eq).
Tactic Notation "f_equal" "/=" := csimpl in *; f_equal.
232

Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
233
Ltac setoid_subst_aux R x :=
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
234
  match goal with
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
235
  | H : R x ?y |- _ =>
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
     is_var x;
     try match y with x _ => fail 2 end;
     repeat match goal with
     | |- context [ x ] => setoid_rewrite H
     | H' : context [ x ] |- _ =>
        try match H' with H => fail 2 end;
        setoid_rewrite H in H'
     end;
244
     clear x H
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
245
246
247
  end.
Ltac setoid_subst :=
  repeat match goal with
248
  | _ => progress simplify_eq/=
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
249
250
  | H : @equiv ?A ?e ?x _ |- _ => setoid_subst_aux (@equiv A e) x
  | H : @equiv ?A ?e _ ?x |- _ => symmetry in H; setoid_subst_aux (@equiv A e) x
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
251
252
  end.

253
254
(** f_equiv works on goals of the form [f _ = f _], for any relation and any
number of arguments. It looks for an appropriate [Proper] instance, and applies
255
256
it. The tactic is somewhat limited, since it cannot be used to backtrack on
the Proper instances that has been found. To that end, we try to ensure the
257
258
259
trivial instance in which the resulting goals have an [eq]. More generally,
when having [Proper (equiv ==> dist) f] and [Proper (dist ==> dist) f], it will
favor the second. *)
260
Ltac f_equiv :=
261
262
  match goal with
  | _ => reflexivity
263
264
265
266
267
  (* We support matches on both sides, *if* they concern the same
     variable.
     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) =>
268
    destruct x
269
  (* First assume that the arguments need the same relation as the result *)
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
  | |- ?R (?f ?x) (?f _) => apply (_ : Proper (R ==> R) f)
  (* For the case in which R is polymorphic, or an operational type class,
  like equiv. *)
  | |- (?R _) (?f ?x) (?f _) => apply (_ : Proper (R _ ==> _) f)
  | |- (?R _ _) (?f ?x) (?f _) => apply (_ : Proper (R _ _ ==> _) f)
  | |- (?R _ _ _) (?f ?x) (?f _) => apply (_ : Proper (R _ _ _ ==> _) f)
  | |- (?R _) (?f ?x ?y) (?f _ _) => apply (_ : Proper (R _ ==> R _ ==> _) f)
  | |- (?R _ _) (?f ?x ?y) (?f _ _) => apply (_ : Proper (R _ _ ==> R _ _ ==> _) f)
  | |- (?R _ _ _) (?f ?x ?y) (?f _ _) => apply (_ : Proper (R _ _ _ ==> R _ _ _ ==> _) f)
  | |- (?R _ _ _ _) (?f ?x ?y) (?f _ _) => apply (_ : Proper (R _ _ _ _ ==> R _ _ _ _ ==> _) f)
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
  (* Next, try to infer the relation. Unfortunately, there is an instance
     of Proper for (eq ==> _), which will always be matched. *)
  (* TODO: Can we exclude that instance? *)
  (* TODO: If some of the arguments are the same, we could also
     query for "pointwise_relation"'s. But that leads to a combinatorial
     explosion about which arguments are and which are not the same. *)
  | |- ?R (?f ?x) (?f _) =>
287
    apply (_ : Proper (_ ==> R) f)
288
  | |- ?R (?f ?x ?y) (?f _ _) =>
289
    apply (_ : Proper (_ ==> _ ==> R) f)
290
291
292
   (* In case the function symbol differs, but the arguments are the same,
      maybe we have a pointwise_relation in our context. *)
  | H : pointwise_relation _ ?R ?f ?g |- ?R (?f ?x) (?g ?x) =>
293
     apply H
294
  end.
295

296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
(** auto_proper solves goals of the form "f _ = f _", for any relation and any
    number of arguments, by repeatedly apply f_equiv and handling trivial cases.
    If it cannot solve an equality, it will leave that to the user. *)
Ltac auto_proper :=
  (* Deal with "pointwise_relation" *)
  repeat lazymatch goal with
  | |- pointwise_relation _ _ _ _ => intros ?
  end;
  (* Normalize away equalities. *)
  simplify_eq;
  (* repeatedly apply congruence lemmas and use the equalities in the hypotheses. *)
307
  try (f_equiv; fast_done || auto_proper).
308

309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
(** solve_proper solves goals of the form "Proper (R1 ==> R2)", for any
    number of relations. All the actual work is done by f_equiv;
    solve_proper just introduces the assumptions and unfolds the first
    head symbol. *)
Ltac solve_proper :=
  (* Introduce everything *)
  intros;
  repeat lazymatch goal with
317
318
  | |- Proper _ _ => intros ???
  | |- (_ ==> _)%signature _ _ => intros ???
319
  | |- pointwise_relation _ _ _ _ => intros ?
320
  end;
321
322
  (* Unfold the head symbol, which is the one we are proving a new property about *)
  lazymatch goal with
323
324
325
326
  | |- ?R (?f _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _) (?f _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _) => unfold f
  | |- ?R (?f _ _ _ _ _ _ _) (?f _ _ _ _ _ _ _) => unfold f
  | |- ?R (?f _ _ _ _ _ _) (?f _ _ _ _ _ _) => unfold f
  | |- ?R (?f _ _ _ _ _) (?f _ _ _ _ _) => unfold f
327
328
329
330
331
  | |- ?R (?f _ _ _ _) (?f _ _ _ _) => unfold f
  | |- ?R (?f _ _ _) (?f _ _ _) => unfold f
  | |- ?R (?f _ _) (?f _ _) => unfold f
  | |- ?R (?f _) (?f _) => unfold f
  end;
332
  solve [ auto_proper ].
333

334
335
336
337
338
339
340
(** The tactic [intros_revert tac] introduces all foralls/arrows, performs tac,
and then reverts them. *)
Ltac intros_revert tac :=
  lazymatch goal with
  | |-  _, _ => let H := fresh in intro H; intros_revert tac; revert H
  | |- _ => tac
  end.
341

342
343
344
345
(** Given a tactic [tac2] generating a list of terms, [iter tac1 tac2]
runs [tac x] for each element [x] until [tac x] succeeds. If it does not
suceed for any element of the generated list, the whole tactic wil fail. *)
Tactic Notation "iter" tactic(tac) tactic(l) :=
346
  let rec go l :=
347
  match l with ?x :: ?l => tac x || go l end in go l.
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368

(** Given H : [A_1 → ... → A_n → B] (where each [A_i] is non-dependent), the
tactic [feed tac H tac_by] creates a subgoal for each [A_i] and calls [tac p]
with the generated proof [p] of [B]. *)
Tactic Notation "feed" tactic(tac) constr(H) :=
  let rec go H :=
  let T := type of H in
  lazymatch eval hnf in T with
  | ?T1  ?T2 =>
    (* Use a separate counter for fresh names to make it more likely that
    the generated name is "fresh" with respect to those generated before
    calling the [feed] tactic. In particular, this hack makes sure that
    tactics like [let H' := fresh in feed (fun p => pose proof p as H') H] do
    not break. *)
    let HT1 := fresh "feed" in assert T1 as HT1;
      [| go (H HT1); clear HT1 ]
  | ?T1 => tac H
  end in go H.

(** The tactic [efeed tac H] is similar to [feed], but it also instantiates
dependent premises of [H] with evars. *)
369
Tactic Notation "efeed" constr(H) "using" tactic3(tac) "by" tactic3 (bytac) :=
370
371
372
373
374
  let rec go H :=
  let T := type of H in
  lazymatch eval hnf in T with
  | ?T1  ?T2 =>
    let HT1 := fresh "feed" in assert T1 as HT1;
375
      [bytac | go (H HT1); clear HT1 ]
376
377
378
379
380
381
  | ?T1  _ =>
    let e := fresh "feed" in evar (e:T1);
    let e' := eval unfold e in e in
    clear e; go (H e')
  | ?T1 => tac H
  end in go H.
382
383
Tactic Notation "efeed" constr(H) "using" tactic3(tac) :=
  efeed H using tac by idtac.
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392

(** The following variants of [pose proof], [specialize], [inversion], and
[destruct], use the [feed] tactic before invoking the actual tactic. *)
Tactic Notation "feed" "pose" "proof" constr(H) "as" ident(H') :=
  feed (fun p => pose proof p as H') H.
Tactic Notation "feed" "pose" "proof" constr(H) :=
  feed (fun p => pose proof p) H.

Tactic Notation "efeed" "pose" "proof" constr(H) "as" ident(H') :=
393
  efeed H using (fun p => pose proof p as H').
394
Tactic Notation "efeed" "pose" "proof" constr(H) :=
395
  efeed H using (fun p => pose proof p).
396
397
398
399

Tactic Notation "feed" "specialize" hyp(H) :=
  feed (fun p => specialize p) H.
Tactic Notation "efeed" "specialize" hyp(H) :=
400
  efeed H using (fun p => specialize p).
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411

Tactic Notation "feed" "inversion" constr(H) :=
  feed (fun p => let H':=fresh in pose proof p as H'; inversion H') H.
Tactic Notation "feed" "inversion" constr(H) "as" simple_intropattern(IP) :=
  feed (fun p => let H':=fresh in pose proof p as H'; inversion H' as IP) H.

Tactic Notation "feed" "destruct" constr(H) :=
  feed (fun p => let H':=fresh in pose proof p as H'; destruct H') H.
Tactic Notation "feed" "destruct" constr(H) "as" simple_intropattern(IP) :=
  feed (fun p => let H':=fresh in pose proof p as H'; destruct H' as IP) H.

412
413
414
415
416

(** The following tactic can be used to add support for patterns to tactic notation:
It will search for the first subterm of the goal matching [pat], and then call [tac]
with that subterm. *)
Ltac find_pat pat tac :=
417
  match goal with |- context [?x] =>
418
419
                  unify pat x with typeclass_instances;
                  tryif tac x then idtac else fail 2
420
421
end.

422
(** Coq's [firstorder] tactic fails or loops on rather small goals already. In 
423
424
425
426
particular, on those generated by the tactic [unfold_elem_ofs] which is used
to solve propositions on collections. The [naive_solver] tactic implements an
ad-hoc and incomplete [firstorder]-like solver using Ltac's backtracking
mechanism. The tactic suffers from the following limitations:
427
- It might leave unresolved evars as Ltac provides no way to detect that.
428
429
- To avoid the tactic becoming too slow, we allow a universally quantified
  hypothesis to be instantiated only once during each search path.
430
431
432
- It does not perform backtracking on instantiation of universally quantified
  assumptions.

433
434
435
436
We use a counter to make the search breath first. Breath first search ensures
that a minimal number of hypotheses is instantiated, and thus reduced the
posibility that an evar remains unresolved.

437
438
439
Despite these limitations, it works much better than Coq's [firstorder] tactic
for the purposes of this development. This tactic either fails or proves the
goal. *)
440
441
442
443
Lemma forall_and_distr (A : Type) (P Q : A  Prop) :
  ( x, P x  Q x)  ( x, P x)  ( x, Q x).
Proof. firstorder. Qed.

444
445
446
447
448
449
(** The tactic [no_new_unsolved_evars tac] executes [tac] and fails if it
creates any new evars. This trick is by Jonathan Leivent, see:
https://coq.inria.fr/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=3872 *)

Ltac no_new_unsolved_evars tac := exact ltac:(tac).

450
451
Tactic Notation "naive_solver" tactic(tac) :=
  unfold iff, not in *;
452
453
  repeat match goal with
  | H : context [ _, _  _ ] |- _ =>
454
    repeat setoid_rewrite forall_and_distr in H; revert H
455
  end;
456
  let rec go n :=
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
  repeat match goal with
  (**i intros *)
  | |-  _, _ => intro
  (**i simplification of assumptions *)
  | H : False |- _ => destruct H
  | H : _  _ |- _ => destruct H
  | H :  _, _  |- _ => destruct H
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
464
  | H : ?P  ?Q, H2 : ?P |- _ => specialize (H H2)
465
466
  | H : Is_true (bool_decide _) |- _ => apply (bool_decide_unpack _) in H
  | H : Is_true (_ && _) |- _ => apply andb_True in H; destruct H
467
  (**i simplify and solve equalities *)
468
  | |- _ => progress simplify_eq/=
469
  (**i solve the goal *)
470
471
472
473
474
475
  | |- _ =>
    solve
    [ eassumption
    | symmetry; eassumption
    | apply not_symmetry; eassumption
    | reflexivity ]
476
477
  (**i operations that generate more subgoals *)
  | |- _  _ => split
478
479
  | |- Is_true (bool_decide _) => apply (bool_decide_pack _)
  | |- Is_true (_ && _) => apply andb_True; split
480
481
482
483
  | H : _  _ |- _ => destruct H
  (**i solve the goal using the user supplied tactic *)
  | |- _ => solve [tac]
  end;
484
485
486
  (**i use recursion to enable backtracking on the following clauses. *)
  match goal with
  (**i instantiation of the conclusion *)
487
  | |-  x, _ => no_new_unsolved_evars ltac:(eexists; go n)
488
489
490
491
492
493
  | |- _  _ => first [left; go n | right; go n]
  | _ =>
    (**i instantiations of assumptions. *)
    lazymatch n with
    | S ?n' =>
      (**i we give priority to assumptions that fit on the conclusion. *)
494
      match goal with
495
496
      | H : _  _ |- _ =>
        is_non_dependent H;
497
498
        no_new_unsolved_evars
          ltac:(first [eapply H | efeed pose proof H]; clear H; go n')
499
500
501
      end
    end
  end
502
  in iter (fun n' => go n') (eval compute in (seq 1 6)).
503
Tactic Notation "naive_solver" := naive_solver eauto.