Skip to content
GitLab
Explore
Sign in
Primary navigation
Search or go to…
Project
I
iris-coq
Manage
Activity
Members
Labels
Plan
Issues
Issue boards
Milestones
Wiki
Code
Merge requests
Repository
Branches
Commits
Tags
Repository graph
Compare revisions
Snippets
Build
Pipelines
Jobs
Pipeline schedules
Artifacts
Deploy
Releases
Model registry
Operate
Environments
Monitor
Incidents
Service Desk
Analyze
Value stream analytics
Contributor analytics
CI/CD analytics
Repository analytics
Model experiments
Help
Help
Support
GitLab documentation
Compare GitLab plans
Community forum
Contribute to GitLab
Provide feedback
Terms and privacy
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Snippets
Groups
Projects
Show more breadcrumbs
Janno
iris-coq
Commits
0c7a5b02
Commit
0c7a5b02
authored
9 years ago
by
Robbert Krebbers
Browse files
Options
Downloads
Plain Diff
Merge branch 'master' of gitlab.mpi-sws.org:FP/iris-coq
parents
aa947529
d0c9c6c8
No related branches found
Branches containing commit
No related tags found
Tags containing commit
No related merge requests found
Changes
2
Hide whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
Showing
2 changed files
algebra/sts.v
+1
-1
1 addition, 1 deletion
algebra/sts.v
prelude/tactics.v
+25
-19
25 additions, 19 deletions
prelude/tactics.v
with
26 additions
and
20 deletions
algebra/sts.v
+
1
−
1
View file @
0c7a5b02
...
...
@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ Proof. by intros ??? ?? [??]; split; apply up_preserving. Qed.
Global
Instance
up_set_preserving
:
Proper
((
⊆
)
==>
flip
(
⊆
)
==>
(
⊆
))
up_set
.
Proof
.
intros
S1
S2
HS
T1
T2
HT
.
rewrite
/
up_set
.
f_equiv
.
move
=>
s1
s2
Hs
.
simpl
in
HT
.
by
apply
up_preserving
.
f_equiv
;
last
done
.
move
=>
s1
s2
Hs
.
simpl
in
HT
.
by
apply
up_preserving
.
Qed
.
Global
Instance
up_set_proper
:
Proper
((
≡
)
==>
(
≡
)
==>
(
≡
))
up_set
.
Proof
.
by
intros
S1
S2
[??]
T1
T2
[??];
split
;
apply
up_set_preserving
.
Qed
.
...
...
This diff is collapsed.
Click to expand it.
prelude/tactics.v
+
25
−
19
View file @
0c7a5b02
...
...
@@ -229,30 +229,23 @@ Ltac setoid_subst :=
|
H
:
@
equiv
?A
?e
_
?x
|
-
_
=>
symmetry
in
H
;
setoid_subst_aux
(
@
equiv
A
e
)
x
end
.
(** f_equiv
solves
goals of the form "f _ = f _", for any relation and any
number of arguments
, by
look
ing
for appropriate "Proper" instance
s.
If it cannot solve an equality, it will leave that to the user
. *)
(** f_equiv
works on
goals of the form "f _ = f _", for any relation and any
number of arguments
. It
look
s
for
an
appropriate "Proper" instance
, and
applies it
. *)
Ltac
f_equiv
:=
(* 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. *)
try
match
goal
with
|
_
=>
first
[
reflexivity
|
assumption
|
symmetry
;
assumption
]
match
goal
with
|
_
=>
reflexivity
(* 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
)
=>
destruct
x
;
f_equiv
destruct
x
(* First assume that the arguments need the same relation as the result *)
|
|
-
?R
(
?f
?x
)
(
?f
_)
=>
apply
(_
:
Proper
(
R
==>
R
)
f
)
;
f_equiv
apply
(_
:
Proper
(
R
==>
R
)
f
)
|
|
-
?R
(
?f
?x
?y
)
(
?f
_
_)
=>
apply
(_
:
Proper
(
R
==>
R
==>
R
)
f
)
;
f_equiv
apply
(_
:
Proper
(
R
==>
R
==>
R
)
f
)
(* 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? *)
...
...
@@ -260,15 +253,28 @@ Ltac f_equiv :=
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
_)
=>
apply
(_
:
Proper
(_
==>
R
)
f
)
;
f_equiv
apply
(_
:
Proper
(_
==>
R
)
f
)
|
|
-
?R
(
?f
?x
?y
)
(
?f
_
_)
=>
apply
(_
:
Proper
(_
==>
_
==>
R
)
f
)
;
f_equiv
apply
(_
:
Proper
(_
==>
_
==>
R
)
f
)
(* 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
)
=>
apply
H
;
f_equiv
apply
H
end
.
(** 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. *)
try
(
f_equiv
;
assumption
||
(
symmetry
;
assumption
)
||
auto_proper
)
.
(** 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
...
...
@@ -291,7 +297,7 @@ Ltac solve_proper :=
|
|
-
?R
(
?f
_
_)
(
?f
_
_)
=>
unfold
f
|
|
-
?R
(
?f
_)
(
?f
_)
=>
unfold
f
end
;
solve
[
f_equiv
]
.
solve
[
auto_proper
]
.
(** The tactic [intros_revert tac] introduces all foralls/arrows, performs tac,
and then reverts them. *)
...
...
This diff is collapsed.
Click to expand it.
Preview
0%
Loading
Try again
or
attach a new file
.
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Save comment
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment