Tactic overview
===============
Many of the tactics below apply to more goals than described in this document
since the behavior of these tactics can be tuned via instances of the type
classes in the file [proofmode/classes](proofmode/classes.v). Most notable, many
of the tactics can be applied when the to be introduced or to be eliminated
connective appears under a later, an update modality, or in the conclusion of a
weakest precondition.
Applying hypotheses and lemmas
------------------------------
- `iExact "H"` : finish the goal if the conclusion matches the hypothesis `H`
- `iAssumption` : finish the goal if the conclusion matches any hypothesis
- `iApply pm_trm` : match the conclusion of the current goal against the
conclusion of `pm_trm` and generates goals for the premises of `pm_trm`. See
proof mode terms below.
If the applied term has more premises than given specialization patterns, the
pattern is extended with `[-] ... [-]`. As a consequence, all unused spatial
hypotheses move to the first premise without an explicit specialization
pattern.
Context management
------------------
- `iIntros (x1 ... xn) "ipat1 ... ipatn"` : introduce universal quantifiers
using Coq introduction patterns `x1 ... xn` and implications/wands using proof
mode introduction patterns `ipat1 ... ipatn`.
- `iClear (x1 ... xn) "selpat"` : clear the hypotheses given by the selection
pattern `selpat` and the Coq level hypotheses/variables `x1 ... xn`.
- `iRevert (x1 ... xn) "selpat"` : revert the hypotheses given by the selection
pattern `selpat` into wands, and the Coq level hypotheses/variables
`x1 ... xn` into universal quantifiers. Persistent hypotheses are wrapped into
the always modality.
- `iRename "H1" into "H2"` : rename the hypothesis `H1` into `H2`.
- `iSpecialize pm_trm` : instantiate universal quantifiers and eliminate
implications/wands of a hypothesis `pm_trm`. See proof mode terms below.
- `iSpecialize pm_trm as #` : instantiate universal quantifiers and eliminate
implications/wands of a hypothesis whose conclusion is persistent. In this
case, all hypotheses can be used for proving the premises, as well as for
the resulting goal.
- `iPoseProof pm_trm as "H"` : put `pm_trm` into the context as a new hypothesis
`H`.
- `iAssert P with "spat" as "ipat"` : generates a new subgoal `P` and adds the
hypothesis `P` to the current goal. The specialization pattern `spat`
specifies which hypotheses will be consumed by proving `P`. The introduction
pattern `ipat` specifies how to eliminate `P`.
In case all branches of `ipat` start with a `#` (which causes `P` to be moved
to the persistent context) or with an `%` (which causes `P` to be moved to the
pure Coq context), then one can use all hypotheses for proving `P` as well as
for proving the current goal.
- `iAssert P as %cpat` : assert `P` and eliminate it using the Coq introduction
pattern `cpat`. All hypotheses can be used for proving `P` as well as for
proving the current goal.
Introduction of logical connectives
-----------------------------------
- `iPureIntro` : turn a pure goal into a Coq goal. This tactic works for goals
of the shape `■ φ`, `a ≡ b` on discrete COFEs, and `✓ a` on discrete CMRAs.
- `iLeft` : left introduction of disjunction.
- `iRight` : right introduction of disjunction.
- `iSplit` : introduction of a conjunction, or separating conjunction provided
one of the operands is persistent.
- `iSplitL "H1 ... Hn"` : introduction of a separating conjunction. The
hypotheses `H1 ... Hn` are used for the left conjunct, and the remaining ones
for the right conjunct. Persistent hypotheses are ignored, since these do not
need to be split.
- `iSplitR "H0 ... Hn"` : symmetric version of the above.
- `iExist t1, .., tn` : introduction of an existential quantifier.
Elimination of logical connectives
----------------------------------
- `iExFalso` : Ex falso sequitur quod libet.
- `iDestruct pm_trm as (x1 ... xn) "ipat"` : elimination of a series of
existential quantifiers using Coq introduction patterns `x1 ... xn`, and
elimination of an object level connective using the proof mode introduction
pattern `ipat`.
In case all branches of `ipat` start with a `#` (which causes the hypothesis
to be moved to the persistent context) or with an `%` (which causes the
hypothesis to be moved to the pure Coq context), then one can use all
hypotheses for proving the premises of `pm_trm`, as well as for proving the
resulting goal. Note that in this case the hypotheses still need to be
subdivided among the spatial premises.
- `iDestruct pm_trm as %cpat` : elimination of a pure hypothesis using the Coq
introduction pattern `cpat`. When using this tactic, all hypotheses can be
used for proving the premises of `pm_trm`, as well as for proving the
resulting goal.
Separating logic specific tactics
---------------------------------
- `iFrame (t1 .. tn) "selpat"` : cancel the Coq terms (or Coq hypotheses)
`t1 ... tn` and Iris hypotheses given by `selpat` in the goal. The constructs
of the selection pattern have the following meaning:
+ `%` : repeatedly frame hypotheses from the Coq context.
+ `#` : repeatedly frame hypotheses from the persistent context.
+ `★` : frame as much of the spatial context as possible.
Notice that framing spatial hypotheses makes them disappear, but framing Coq
or persistent hypotheses does not make them disappear.
This tactic finishes the goal in case everything in the conclusion has been
framed.
- `iCombine "H1" "H2" as "H"` : turns `H1 : P1` and `H2 : P2` into
`H : P1 ★ P2`.
Modalities
----------
- `iModIntro` : introduction of a modality that is an instance of the
`IntoModal` type class. Instances include: later, except 0, basic update and
fancy update.
- `iMod pm_trm as (x1 ... xn) "ipat"` : eliminate a modality `pm_trm` that is
an instance of the `ElimModal` type class. Instances include: later, except 0,
basic update and fancy update.
The later modality
------------------
- `iNext n` : introduce `n` laters by stripping that number of laters from all
hypotheses. If the argument `n` is not given, it strips one later if the
leftmost conjuct is of the shape `▷ P`, or `n` laters if the leftmost conjuct
is of the shape `▷^n P`.
- `iLöb as "IH" forall (x1 ... xn) "selpat"` : perform Löb induction by
generating a hypothesis `IH : ▷ goal`. The tactic generalizes over the Coq
level variables `x1 ... xn`, the hypotheses given by the selection pattern
`selpat`, and the spatial context.
Induction
---------
- `iInduction x as cpat "IH" forall (x1 ... xn) "selpat"` : perform induction on
the Coq term `x`. The Coq introduction pattern is used to name the introduced
variables. The induction hypotheses are inserted into the persistent context
and given fresh names prefixed `IH`. The tactic generalizes over the Coq level
variables `x1 ... xn`, the hypotheses given by the selection pattern `selpat`,
and the spatial context.
Rewriting
---------
- `iRewrite pm_trm` : rewrite an equality in the conclusion.
- `iRewrite pm_trm in "H"` : rewrite an equality in the hypothesis `H`.
Iris
----
- `iInv N as (x1 ... xn) "ipat" "Hclose"` : open the invariant `N`, the update
for closing the invariant is put in a hypothesis named `Hclose`.
Miscellaneous
-------------
- The tactic `done` is extended so that it also performs `iAssumption` and
introduces pure connectives.
- The proof mode adds hints to the core `eauto` database so that `eauto`
automatically introduces: conjunctions and disjunctions, universal and
existential quantifiers, implications and wand, always, later and update
modalities, and pure connectives.
Selection patterns
==================
Selection patterns are used to select hypotheses in the tactics `iRevert`,
`iClear`, `iFrame`, `iLöb` and `iInduction`. The proof mode supports the
following _selection patterns_:
- `H` : select the hypothesis named `H`.
- `%` : select the entire pure/Coq context.
- `#` : select the entire persistent context.
- `★` : select the entire spatial context.
Introduction patterns
=====================
Introduction patterns are used to perform introductions and eliminations of
multiple connectives on the fly. The proof mode supports the following
_introduction patterns_:
- `H` : create a hypothesis named `H`.
- `?` : create an anonymous hypothesis.
- `_` : remove the hypothesis.
- `$` : frame the hypothesis in the goal.
- `[ipat ipat]` : (separating) conjunction elimination.
- `[ipat|ipat]` : disjunction elimination.
- `[]` : false elimination.
- `%` : move the hypothesis to the pure Coq context (anonymously).
- `# ipat` : move the hypothesis to the persistent context.
- `> ipat` : eliminate a modality (if the goal permits).
Apart from this, there are the following introduction patterns that can only
appear at the top level:
- `{H1 ... Hn}` : clear `H1 ... Hn`.
- `{$H1 ... $Hn}` : frame `H1 ... Hn` (this pattern can be mixed with the
previous pattern, e.g., `{$H1 H2 $H3}`).
- `!%` : introduce a pure goal (and leave the proof mode).
- `!#` : introduce an always modality (given that the spatial context is empty).
- `!>` : introduce a modality.
- `/=` : perform `simpl`.
- `*` : introduce all universal quantifiers.
- `**` : introduce all universal quantifiers, as well as all arrows and wands.
For example, given:
∀ x, x = 0 ⊢ □ (P → False ∨ □ (Q ∧ ▷ R) -★ P ★ ▷ (R ★ Q ∧ x = pred 2)).
You can write
iIntros (x) "% !# $ [[] | #[HQ HR]] /= !>".
which results in:
x : nat
H : x = 0
______________________________________(1/1)
"HQ" : Q
"HR" : R
--------------------------------------□
R ★ Q ∧ x = 1
Specialization patterns
=======================
Since we are reasoning in a spatial logic, when eliminating a lemma or
hypothesis of type ``P_0 -★ ... -★ P_n -★ R``, one has to specify how the
hypotheses are split between the premises. The proof mode supports the following
_specification patterns_ to express splitting of hypotheses:
- `H` : use the hypothesis `H` (it should match the premise exactly). If `H` is
spatial, it will be consumed.
- `[H1 ... Hn]` : generate a goal with the (spatial) hypotheses `H1 ... Hn` and
all persistent hypotheses. The spatial hypotheses among `H1 ... Hn` will be
consumed. Hypotheses may be prefixed with a `$`, which results in them being
framed in the generated goal.
- `[-H1 ... Hn]` : negated form of the above pattern.
- `>[H1 ... Hn]` : same as the above pattern, but can only be used if the goal
is a modality, in which case the modality will be kept in the generated goal
for the premise will be wrapped into the modality.
- `>[-H1 ... Hn]` : negated form of the above pattern.
- `>` : shorthand for `>[-]` (typically used for the last premise of an applied
lemma).
- `[#]` : This pattern can be used when eliminating `P -★ Q` with `P`
persistent. Using this pattern, all hypotheses are available in the goal for
`P`, as well the remaining goal.
- `[%]` : This pattern can be used when eliminating `P -★ Q` when `P` is pure.
It will generate a Coq goal for `P` and does not consume any hypotheses.
- `*` : instantiate all top-level universal quantifiers with meta variables.
For example, given:
H : □ P -★ P 2 -★ x = 0 -★ Q1 ∗ Q2
You can write:
iDestruct ("H" with "[#] [H1 H2] [%]") as "[H4 H5]".
Proof mode terms
================
Many of the proof mode tactics (such as `iDestruct`, `iApply`, `iRewrite`) can
take both hypotheses and lemmas, and allow one to instantiate universal
quantifiers and implications/wands of these hypotheses/lemmas on the fly.
The syntax for the arguments of these tactics, called _proof mode terms_, is:
(H $! t1 ... tn with "spat1 .. spatn")
Here, `H` can be both a hypothesis, as well as a Coq lemma whose conclusion is
of the shape `P ⊢ Q`. In the above, `t1 ... tn` are arbitrary Coq terms used
for instantiation of universal quantifiers, and `spat1 .. spatn` are
specialization patterns to eliminate implications and wands.
Proof mode terms can be written down using the following short hands too:
(H with "spat1 .. spatn")
(H $! t1 ... tn)
H