Commit 26088f98 authored by Robbert Krebbers's avatar Robbert Krebbers

More documentation for solve_proper_prepare + introduce more.

parent 8d3d0713
Pipeline #14074 passed with stage
in 13 minutes and 35 seconds
......@@ -347,7 +347,18 @@ Ltac solve_proper_prepare :=
| |- Proper _ _ => intros ???
| |- (_ ==> _)%signature _ _ => intros ???
| |- pointwise_relation _ _ _ _ => intros ?
| |- ?R ?f _ => let f' := constr:(λ x, f x) in intros ?
| |- ?R ?f _ =>
(* Deal with other cases where we have an equivalence relation on functions
(e.g. a [pointwise_relation] that is hidden in some form in [R]). We do
this by checking if the arguments of the relation are actually functions,
and then forcefully introduce one ∀ and introduce the remaining ∀s that
show up in the goal. To check that we actually have an equivalence relation
on functions, we try to eta expand [f], which will only succeed if [f] is
actually a function. *)
let f' := constr:(λ x y, f x y) in
(* Now forcefully introduce the first ∀ and other ∀s that show up in the
goal afterwards. *)
intros ?; intros
  • I presume this is motivated by some derivation failing somewhere? Would be nice to have this as a test.

Please register or sign in to reply
end; simplify_eq;
(* We try with and without unfolding. We have to backtrack on
that because unfolding may succeed, but then the proof may fail. *)
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