Verified Commit 963f522b authored by Tej Chajed's avatar Tej Chajed

Copyedit the proof mode documentation

parent 12db2bda
......@@ -3,9 +3,9 @@ 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
classes in the file [proofmode/classes](proofmode/classes.v). Most notably, many
of the tactics can be applied when the connective to be introduced or to be eliminated
appears under a later, an update modality, or in the conclusion of a
weakest precondition.
Applying hypotheses and lemmas
......@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ Elimination of logical connectives
used for proving the premises of `pm_trm`, as well as for proving the
resulting goal.
Separating logic specific tactics
Separation logic-specific tactics
---------------------------------
- `iFrame (t1 .. tn) "selpat"` : cancel the Coq terms (or Coq hypotheses)
......@@ -106,10 +106,10 @@ Separating logic specific tactics
Notice that framing spatial hypotheses makes them disappear, but framing Coq
or intuitionistic hypotheses does not make them disappear.
This tactic finishes the goal in case everything in the conclusion has been
This tactic solves the goal if everything in the conclusion has been
framed.
- `iCombine "H1" "H2" as "pat"` : turns `H1 : P1` and `H2 : P2` into
`P1 ∗ P2`, on which `iDetruct ... as pat` is called.
- `iCombine "H1" "H2" as "pat"` : combines `H1 : P1` and `H2 : P2` into
`H: P1 ∗ P2`, then calls `iDestruct H as pat` on the combined hypothesis.
Modalities
----------
......@@ -322,12 +322,12 @@ 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
Here, `H` can be either a hypothesis or 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:
Proof mode terms can be written down using the following shorthand syntaxes, too:
(H with "spat1 .. spatn")
(H $! t1 ... tn)
......
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