Skip to content
GitLab
Projects
Groups
Snippets
Help
Loading...
Help
What's new
10
Help
Support
Community forum
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Submit feedback
Contribute to GitLab
Sign in / Register
Toggle navigation
Open sidebar
PierreMarie Pédrot
Iris
Commits
f8e99264
Commit
f8e99264
authored
Dec 25, 2018
by
Robbert Krebbers
Browse files
Options
Browse Files
Download
Email Patches
Plain Diff
Move `iPoseProofCore*` tactics up so others can depend on it.
parent
1d23872c
Changes
1
Hide whitespace changes
Inline
Sidebyside
Showing
1 changed file
with
70 additions
and
70 deletions
+70
70
theories/proofmode/ltac_tactics.v
theories/proofmode/ltac_tactics.v
+70
70
No files found.
theories/proofmode/ltac_tactics.v
View file @
f8e99264
...
...
@@ 595,7 +595,7 @@ Tactic Notation "iRevert" "(" ident(x1) ident(x2) ident(x3) ident(x4)
ident
(
x5
)
ident
(
x6
)
ident
(
x7
)
ident
(
x8
)
")"
constr
(
Hs
)
:
=
iRevert
Hs
;
iRevert
(
x1
x2
x3
x4
x5
x6
x7
x8
).
(** *
S
pecialize *)
(** *
The s
pecialize
and pose proof tactics
*)
Record
iTrm
{
X
As
S
}
:
=
ITrm
{
itrm
:
X
;
itrm_vars
:
hlist
As
;
itrm_hyps
:
S
}.
Arguments
ITrm
{
_
_
_
}
_
_
_
.
...
...
@@ 606,6 +606,74 @@ Notation "( H $! x1 .. xn 'with' pat )" :=
(
ITrm
H
(
hcons
x1
..
(
hcons
xn
hnil
)
..)
pat
)
(
at
level
0
,
x1
,
xn
at
level
9
).
Notation
"( H 'with' pat )"
:
=
(
ITrm
H
hnil
pat
)
(
at
level
0
).
(* The tactic [iIntoEmpValid] tactic solves a goal [bi_emp_valid Q]. The
argument [t] must be a Coq term whose type is of the following shape:
[∀ (x_1 : A_1) .. (x_n : A_n), φ]
and so that we have an instance `AsValid φ Q`.
Examples of such [φ]s are
 [bi_emp_valid P], in which case [Q] should be [P]
 [P1 ⊢ P2], in which case [Q] should be [P1 ∗ P2]
 [P1 ⊣⊢ P2], in which case [Q] should be [P1 ↔ P2]
The tactic instantiates each dependent argument [x_i] with an evar and generates
a goal [R] for each nondependent argument [x_i : R]. For example, if the
original goal was [Q] and [t] has type [∀ x, P x → Q], then it generates an evar
[?x] for [x] and a subgoal [P ?x]. *)
Local
Ltac
iIntoEmpValid
t
:
=
let
go_specialize
t
tT
:
=
lazymatch
tT
with
(* We do not use hnf of tT, because, if
entailment is not opaque, then it would
unfold it. *)

?P
→
?Q
=>
let
H
:
=
fresh
in
assert
P
as
H
;
[
iIntoEmpValid
uconstr
:
(
t
H
)
;
clear
H
]

∀
_
:
?T
,
_
=>
(* Put [T] inside an [id] to avoid TC inference from being invoked. *)
(* This is a workarround for Coq bug #6583. *)
let
e
:
=
fresh
in
evar
(
e
:
id
T
)
;
let
e'
:
=
eval
unfold
e
in
e
in
clear
e
;
iIntoEmpValid
(
t
e'
)
end
in
(* We try two reduction tactics for the type of t before trying to
specialize it. We first try the head normal form in order to
unfold all the definition that could hide an entailment. Then,
we try the much weaker [eval cbv zeta], because entailment is
not necessarilly opaque, and could be unfolded by [hnf].
However, for calling type class search, we only use [cbv zeta]
in order to make sure we do not unfold [bi_emp_valid]. *)
let
tT
:
=
type
of
t
in
first
[
let
tT'
:
=
eval
hnf
in
tT
in
go_specialize
t
tT'

let
tT'
:
=
eval
cbv
zeta
in
tT
in
go_specialize
t
tT'

let
tT'
:
=
eval
cbv
zeta
in
tT
in
notypeclasses
refine
(
as_emp_valid_1
tT
_
_
)
;
[
iSolveTC

fail
1
"iPoseProof: not a BI assertion"

exact
t
]].
Tactic
Notation
"iPoseProofCoreHyp"
constr
(
H
)
"as"
constr
(
Hnew
)
:
=
eapply
tac_pose_proof_hyp
with
_
_
H
_
Hnew
_;
[
pm_reflexivity

let
H
:
=
pretty_ident
H
in
fail
"iPoseProof:"
H
"not found"

pm_reflexivity

let
Htmp
:
=
pretty_ident
Hnew
in
fail
"iPoseProof:"
Hnew
"not fresh"
].
Tactic
Notation
"iPoseProofCoreLem"
constr
(
lem
)
"as"
constr
(
Hnew
)
"before_tc"
tactic
(
tac
)
:
=
eapply
tac_pose_proof
with
_
Hnew
_;
(* (j:=H) *)
[
iIntoEmpValid
lem

pm_reflexivity

let
Htmp
:
=
pretty_ident
Hnew
in
fail
"iPoseProof:"
Hnew
"not fresh"

tac
]
;
(* Solve all remaining TC premises generated by [iIntoEmpValid] *)
try
iSolveTC
.
(** There is some hacky stuff going on here: because of Coq bug #6583, unresolved
type classes in the arguments `xs` are resolved at arbitrary moments. Tactics
like `apply`, `split` and `eexists` wrongly trigger type class search to resolve
...
...
@@ 807,75 +875,6 @@ Tactic Notation "iSpecialize" open_constr(t) :=
Tactic
Notation
"iSpecialize"
open_constr
(
t
)
"as"
"#"
:
=
iSpecializeCore
t
as
true
.
(** * Pose proof *)
(* The tactic [iIntoEmpValid] tactic solves a goal [bi_emp_valid Q]. The
argument [t] must be a Coq term whose type is of the following shape:
[∀ (x_1 : A_1) .. (x_n : A_n), φ]
and so that we have an instance `AsValid φ Q`.
Examples of such [φ]s are
 [bi_emp_valid P], in which case [Q] should be [P]
 [P1 ⊢ P2], in which case [Q] should be [P1 ∗ P2]
 [P1 ⊣⊢ P2], in which case [Q] should be [P1 ↔ P2]
The tactic instantiates each dependent argument [x_i] with an evar and generates
a goal [R] for each nondependent argument [x_i : R]. For example, if the
original goal was [Q] and [t] has type [∀ x, P x → Q], then it generates an evar
[?x] for [x] and a subgoal [P ?x]. *)
Local
Ltac
iIntoEmpValid
t
:
=
let
go_specialize
t
tT
:
=
lazymatch
tT
with
(* We do not use hnf of tT, because, if
entailment is not opaque, then it would
unfold it. *)

?P
→
?Q
=>
let
H
:
=
fresh
in
assert
P
as
H
;
[
iIntoEmpValid
uconstr
:
(
t
H
)
;
clear
H
]

∀
_
:
?T
,
_
=>
(* Put [T] inside an [id] to avoid TC inference from being invoked. *)
(* This is a workarround for Coq bug #6583. *)
let
e
:
=
fresh
in
evar
(
e
:
id
T
)
;
let
e'
:
=
eval
unfold
e
in
e
in
clear
e
;
iIntoEmpValid
(
t
e'
)
end
in
(* We try two reduction tactics for the type of t before trying to
specialize it. We first try the head normal form in order to
unfold all the definition that could hide an entailment. Then,
we try the much weaker [eval cbv zeta], because entailment is
not necessarilly opaque, and could be unfolded by [hnf].
However, for calling type class search, we only use [cbv zeta]
in order to make sure we do not unfold [bi_emp_valid]. *)
let
tT
:
=
type
of
t
in
first
[
let
tT'
:
=
eval
hnf
in
tT
in
go_specialize
t
tT'

let
tT'
:
=
eval
cbv
zeta
in
tT
in
go_specialize
t
tT'

let
tT'
:
=
eval
cbv
zeta
in
tT
in
notypeclasses
refine
(
as_emp_valid_1
tT
_
_
)
;
[
iSolveTC

fail
1
"iPoseProof: not a BI assertion"

exact
t
]].
Tactic
Notation
"iPoseProofCoreHyp"
constr
(
H
)
"as"
constr
(
Hnew
)
:
=
eapply
tac_pose_proof_hyp
with
_
_
H
_
Hnew
_;
[
pm_reflexivity

let
H
:
=
pretty_ident
H
in
fail
"iPoseProof:"
H
"not found"

pm_reflexivity

let
Htmp
:
=
pretty_ident
Hnew
in
fail
"iPoseProof:"
Hnew
"not fresh"
].
Tactic
Notation
"iPoseProofCoreLem"
constr
(
lem
)
"as"
constr
(
Hnew
)
"before_tc"
tactic
(
tac
)
:
=
eapply
tac_pose_proof
with
_
Hnew
_;
(* (j:=H) *)
[
iIntoEmpValid
lem

pm_reflexivity

let
Htmp
:
=
pretty_ident
Hnew
in
fail
"iPoseProof:"
Hnew
"not fresh"

tac
]
;
(* Solve all remaining TC premises generated by [iIntoEmpValid] *)
try
iSolveTC
.
(** The tactic [iPoseProofCore lem as p lazy_tc tac] inserts the resource
described by [lem] into the context. The tactic takes a continuation [tac] as
its argument, which is called with a temporary fresh name [H] that refers to
...
...
@@ 920,6 +919,7 @@ Tactic Notation "iPoseProofCore" open_constr(lem)
end
end
.
(** * The apply tactic *)
(** [iApply lem] takes an argument [lem : P₁ ∗ .. ∗ Pₙ ∗ Q] (after the
specialization patterns in [lem] have been executed), where [Q] should match
the goal, and generates new goals [P1] ... [Pₙ]. Depending on the number of
...
...
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