Skip to content
GitLab
Projects
Groups
Snippets
Help
Loading...
Help
Help
Support
Community forum
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Submit feedback
Contribute to GitLab
Sign in / Register
Toggle navigation
I
Iris
Project overview
Project overview
Details
Activity
Releases
Repository
Repository
Files
Commits
Branches
Tags
Contributors
Graph
Compare
Issues
0
Issues
0
List
Boards
Labels
Service Desk
Milestones
Merge Requests
0
Merge Requests
0
CI / CD
CI / CD
Pipelines
Jobs
Schedules
Operations
Operations
Incidents
Environments
Analytics
Analytics
CI / CD
Repository
Value Stream
Wiki
Wiki
Snippets
Snippets
Members
Members
Collapse sidebar
Close sidebar
Activity
Graph
Create a new issue
Jobs
Commits
Issue Boards
Open sidebar
Rodolphe Lepigre
Iris
Commits
9589d1ba
Commit
9589d1ba
authored
Feb 25, 2016
by
Robbert Krebbers
Browse files
Options
Browse Files
Download
Email Patches
Plain Diff
Make identation of solve_proper and f_equiv more consistent.
parent
00a054f1
Changes
1
Hide whitespace changes
Inline
Sidebyside
Showing
1 changed file
with
33 additions
and
34 deletions
+33
34
prelude/tactics.v
prelude/tactics.v
+33
34
No files found.
prelude/tactics.v
View file @
9589d1ba
...
...
@@ 234,40 +234,39 @@ Ltac setoid_subst :=
Ltac
f_equiv
:
=
(* Deal with "pointwise_relation" *)
repeat
lazymatch
goal
with


pointwise_relation
_
_
_
_
=>
intros
?
end
;


pointwise_relation
_
_
_
_
=>
intros
?
end
;
(* Normalize away equalities. *)
subst
;
(* repeatedly apply congruence lemmas and use the equalities in the hypotheses. *)
first
[
reflexivity

assumption

symmetry
;
assumption

match
goal
with
(* 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 offdiagonal cases. *)


?R
(
match
?x
with
_
=>
_
end
)
(
match
?x
with
_
=>
_
end
)
=>
destruct
x
;
f_equiv
(* First assume that the arguments need the same relation as the result *)


?R
(
?f
?x
)
(
?f
_
)
=>
apply
(
_
:
Proper
(
R
==>
R
)
f
)
;
f_equiv


?R
(
?f
?x
?y
)
(
?f
_
_
)
=>
apply
(
_
:
Proper
(
R
==>
R
==>
R
)
f
)
;
f_equiv
(* 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
_
)
=>
apply
(
_
:
Proper
(
_
==>
R
)
f
)
;
f_equiv


?R
(
?f
?x
?y
)
(
?f
_
_
)
=>
apply
(
_
:
Proper
(
_
==>
_
==>
R
)
f
)
;
f_equiv
(* 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
end

idtac
(* Let the user solve this goal *)
].
try
match
goal
with

_
=>
first
[
reflexivity

assumption

symmetry
;
assumption
]
(* 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 offdiagonal cases. *)


?R
(
match
?x
with
_
=>
_
end
)
(
match
?x
with
_
=>
_
end
)
=>
destruct
x
;
f_equiv
(* First assume that the arguments need the same relation as the result *)


?R
(
?f
?x
)
(
?f
_
)
=>
apply
(
_
:
Proper
(
R
==>
R
)
f
)
;
f_equiv


?R
(
?f
?x
?y
)
(
?f
_
_
)
=>
apply
(
_
:
Proper
(
R
==>
R
==>
R
)
f
)
;
f_equiv
(* 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
_
)
=>
apply
(
_
:
Proper
(
_
==>
R
)
f
)
;
f_equiv


?R
(
?f
?x
?y
)
(
?f
_
_
)
=>
apply
(
_
:
Proper
(
_
==>
_
==>
R
)
f
)
;
f_equiv
(* 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
end
.
(** solve_proper solves goals of the form "Proper (R1 ==> R2)", for any
number of relations. All the actual work is done by f_equiv;
...
...
@@ 277,9 +276,9 @@ Ltac solve_proper :=
(* Introduce everything *)
intros
;
repeat
lazymatch
goal
with


Proper
_
_
=>
intros
???


(
_
==>
_
)%
signature
_
_
=>
intros
???
end
;


Proper
_
_
=>
intros
???


(
_
==>
_
)%
signature
_
_
=>
intros
???
end
;
(* Unfold the head symbol, which is the one we are proving a new property about *)
lazymatch
goal
with


?R
(
?f
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
)
(
?f
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
)
=>
unfold
f
...
...
Write
Preview
Markdown
is supported
0%
Try again
or
attach a new file
.
Attach a file
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment