tactics.v 20.8 KB
Newer Older
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
1
(* Copyright (c) 2012-2015, Robbert Krebbers. *)
2
(* This file is distributed under the terms of the BSD license. *)
3
(** This file collects general purpose tactics that are used throughout
4
the development. *)
5 6
From Coq Require Import Omega.
From Coq Require Export Psatz.
7
From stdpp Require Export decidable.
8

Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Lemma f_equal_dep {A B} (f g :  x : A, B x) x : f = g  f x = g x.
Proof. intros ->; reflexivity. Qed.
Lemma f_equal_help {A B} (f g : A  B) x y : f = g  x = y  f x = g y.
Proof. intros -> ->; reflexivity. Qed.
Ltac f_equal :=
  let rec go :=
    match goal with
    | _ => reflexivity
    | _ => apply f_equal_help; [go|try reflexivity]
    | |- ?f ?x = ?g ?x => apply (f_equal_dep f g); go
    end in
  try go.

22 23 24 25 26
(** We declare hint databases [f_equal], [congruence] and [lia] and containing
solely the tactic corresponding to its name. These hint database are useful in
to be combined in combination with other hint database. *)
Hint Extern 998 (_ = _) => f_equal : f_equal.
Hint Extern 999 => congruence : congruence.
27
Hint Extern 1000 => lia : lia.
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
28
Hint Extern 1000 => omega : omega.
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
29 30
Hint Extern 1001 => progress subst : subst. (** backtracking on this one will
be very bad, so use with care! *)
31 32 33

(** The tactic [intuition] expands to [intuition auto with *] by default. This
is rather efficient when having big hint databases, or expensive [Hint Extern]
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
34
declarations as the ones above. *)
35 36
Tactic Notation "intuition" := intuition auto.

37 38 39 40 41 42 43
(* [done] can get slow as it calls "trivial". [fast_done] can solve way less
   goals, but it will also always finish quickly. *)
Ltac fast_done :=
  solve [ reflexivity | eassumption | symmetry; eassumption ].
Tactic Notation "fast_by" tactic(tac) :=
  tac; fast_done.

44
(** A slightly modified version of Ssreflect's finishing tactic [done]. It
45 46 47 48
also performs [reflexivity] and uses symmetry of negated equalities. Compared
to Ssreflect's [done], it does not compute the goal's [hnf] so as to avoid
unfolding setoid equalities. Note that this tactic performs much better than
Coq's [easy] tactic as it does not perform [inversion]. *)
49 50
Ltac done :=
  trivial; intros; solve
51
  [ repeat first
52 53
    [ fast_done
    | solve [trivial]
54 55 56 57 58
    | solve [symmetry; trivial]
    | discriminate
    | contradiction
    | solve [apply not_symmetry; trivial]
    | split ]
59
  | match goal with H : ¬_ |- _ => solve [case H; trivial] end ].
60 61 62
Tactic Notation "by" tactic(tac) :=
  tac; done.

63 64 65 66
(** Aliases for trans and etrans that are easier to type *)
Tactic Notation "trans" constr(A) := transitivity A.
Tactic Notation "etrans" := etransitivity.

67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77
(** Tactics for splitting conjunctions:

- [split_and] : split the goal if is syntactically of the shape [_ ∧ _]
- [split_ands?] : split the goal repeatedly (perhaps zero times) while it is
  of the shape [_ ∧ _].
- [split_ands!] : works similarly, but at least one split should succeed. In
  order to do so, it will head normalize the goal first to possibly expose a
  conjunction.

Note that [split_and] differs from [split] by only splitting conjunctions. The
[split] tactic splits any inductive with one constructor. *)
78 79 80 81 82
Tactic Notation "split_and" :=
  match goal with
  | |- _  _ => split
  | |- Is_true (_ && _) => apply andb_True; split
  end.
83 84
Tactic Notation "split_and" "?" := repeat split_and.
Tactic Notation "split_and" "!" := hnf; split_and; split_and?.
85

86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
Tactic Notation "destruct_and" "?" :=
  repeat match goal with
  | H : False |- _ => destruct H
  | H : _  _ |- _ => destruct H
  | H : Is_true (bool_decide _) |- _ => apply (bool_decide_unpack _) in H
  | H : Is_true (_ && _) |- _ => apply andb_True in H; destruct H
  end.
Tactic Notation "destruct_and" "!" := progress (destruct_and?).

95 96 97
(** The tactic [case_match] destructs an arbitrary match in the conclusion or
assumptions, and generates a corresponding equality. This tactic is best used
together with the [repeat] tactical. *)
98 99 100 101 102 103
Ltac case_match :=
  match goal with
  | H : context [ match ?x with _ => _ end ] |- _ => destruct x eqn:?
  | |- context [ match ?x with _ => _ end ] => destruct x eqn:?
  end.

104 105 106 107
(** The tactic [unless T by tac_fail] succeeds if [T] is not provable by
the tactic [tac_fail]. *)
Tactic Notation "unless" constr(T) "by" tactic3(tac_fail) :=
  first [assert T by tac_fail; fail 1 | idtac].
108 109 110 111 112 113

(** The tactic [repeat_on_hyps tac] repeatedly applies [tac] in unspecified
order on all hypotheses until it cannot be applied to any hypothesis anymore. *)
Tactic Notation "repeat_on_hyps" tactic3(tac) :=
  repeat match goal with H : _ |- _ => progress tac H end.

114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138
(** The tactic [clear dependent H1 ... Hn] clears the hypotheses [Hi] and
their dependencies. *)
Tactic Notation "clear" "dependent" hyp(H1) hyp(H2) :=
  clear dependent H1; clear dependent H2.
Tactic Notation "clear" "dependent" hyp(H1) hyp(H2) hyp(H3) :=
  clear dependent H1 H2; clear dependent H3.
Tactic Notation "clear" "dependent" hyp(H1) hyp(H2) hyp(H3) hyp(H4) :=
  clear dependent H1 H2 H3; clear dependent H4.
Tactic Notation "clear" "dependent" hyp(H1) hyp(H2) hyp(H3) hyp(H4)
  hyp(H5) := clear dependent H1 H2 H3 H4; clear dependent H5.
Tactic Notation "clear" "dependent" hyp(H1) hyp(H2) hyp(H3) hyp(H4) hyp(H5)
  hyp (H6) := clear dependent H1 H2 H3 H4 H5; clear dependent H6.
Tactic Notation "clear" "dependent" hyp(H1) hyp(H2) hyp(H3) hyp(H4) hyp(H5)
  hyp (H6) hyp(H7) := clear dependent H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6; clear dependent H7.
Tactic Notation "clear" "dependent" hyp(H1) hyp(H2) hyp(H3) hyp(H4) hyp(H5)
  hyp (H6) hyp(H7) hyp(H8) :=
  clear dependent H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7; clear dependent H8.
Tactic Notation "clear" "dependent" hyp(H1) hyp(H2) hyp(H3) hyp(H4) hyp(H5)
  hyp (H6) hyp(H7) hyp(H8) hyp(H9) :=
  clear dependent H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8; clear dependent H9.
Tactic Notation "clear" "dependent" hyp(H1) hyp(H2) hyp(H3) hyp(H4) hyp(H5)
  hyp (H6) hyp(H7) hyp(H8) hyp(H9) hyp(H10) :=
  clear dependent H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9; clear dependent H10.

(** The tactic [is_non_dependent H] determines whether the goal's conclusion or
139
hypotheses depend on [H]. *)
140 141 142 143 144 145 146
Tactic Notation "is_non_dependent" constr(H) :=
  match goal with
  | _ : context [ H ] |- _ => fail 1
  | |- context [ H ] => fail 1
  | _ => idtac
  end.

147 148
(** The tactic [var_eq x y] fails if [x] and [y] are unequal, and [var_neq]
does the converse. *)
149 150 151
Ltac var_eq x1 x2 := match x1 with x2 => idtac | _ => fail 1 end.
Ltac var_neq x1 x2 := match x1 with x2 => fail 1 | _ => idtac end.

Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
152 153 154 155 156 157 158
(** Operational type class projections in recursive calls are not folded back
appropriately by [simpl]. The tactic [csimpl] uses the [fold_classes] tactics
to refold recursive calls of [fmap], [mbind], [omap] and [alter]. A
self-contained example explaining the problem can be found in the following
Coq-club message:

https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/coq-club/2012-10/msg00147.html *)
159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176
Ltac fold_classes :=
  repeat match goal with
  | |- appcontext [ ?F ] =>
    progress match type of F with
    | FMap _ =>
       change F with (@fmap _ F);
       repeat change (@fmap _ (@fmap _ F)) with (@fmap _ F)
    | MBind _ =>
       change F with (@mbind _ F);
       repeat change (@mbind _ (@mbind _ F)) with (@mbind _ F)
    | OMap _ =>
       change F with (@omap _ F);
       repeat change (@omap _ (@omap _ F)) with (@omap _ F)
    | Alter _ _ _ =>
       change F with (@alter _ _ _ F);
       repeat change (@alter _ _ _ (@alter _ _ _ F)) with (@alter _ _ _ F)
    end
  end.
177 178 179
Ltac fold_classes_hyps H :=
  repeat match type of H with
  | appcontext [ ?F ] =>
180 181
    progress match type of F with
    | FMap _ =>
182 183
       change F with (@fmap _ F) in H;
       repeat change (@fmap _ (@fmap _ F)) with (@fmap _ F) in H
184
    | MBind _ =>
185 186
       change F with (@mbind _ F) in H;
       repeat change (@mbind _ (@mbind _ F)) with (@mbind _ F) in H
187
    | OMap _ =>
188 189
       change F with (@omap _ F) in H;
       repeat change (@omap _ (@omap _ F)) with (@omap _ F) in H
190
    | Alter _ _ _ =>
191 192
       change F with (@alter _ _ _ F) in H;
       repeat change (@alter _ _ _ (@alter _ _ _ F)) with (@alter _ _ _ F) in H
193 194
    end
  end.
195 196
Tactic Notation "csimpl" "in" hyp(H) :=
  try (progress simpl in H; fold_classes_hyps H).
197
Tactic Notation "csimpl" := try (progress simpl; fold_classes).
198 199
Tactic Notation "csimpl" "in" "*" :=
  repeat_on_hyps (fun H => csimpl in H); csimpl.
200

Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
201
(** The tactic [simplify_eq] repeatedly substitutes, discriminates,
202 203
and injects equalities, and tries to contradict impossible inequalities. *)
Tactic Notation "simplify_eq" := repeat
204
  match goal with
205 206 207 208
  | H : _  _ |- _ => by destruct H
  | H : _ = _  False |- _ => by destruct H
  | H : ?x = _ |- _ => subst x
  | H : _ = ?x |- _ => subst x
209
  | H : _ = _ |- _ => discriminate H
210
  | H : _  _ |- _ => apply leibniz_equiv in H
211 212
  | H : ?f _ = ?f _ |- _ => apply (inj f) in H
  | H : ?f _ _ = ?f _ _ |- _ => apply (inj2 f) in H; destruct H
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
213
    (* before [injection] to circumvent bug #2939 in some situations *)
214
  | H : ?f _ = ?f _ |- _ => progress injection H as H
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
215
    (* first hyp will be named [H], subsequent hyps will be given fresh names *)
216 217 218 219 220
  | H : ?f _ _ = ?f _ _ |- _ => progress injection H as H
  | H : ?f _ _ _ = ?f _ _ _ |- _ => progress injection H as H
  | H : ?f _ _ _ _ = ?f _ _ _ _ |- _ => progress injection H as H
  | H : ?f _ _ _ _ _ = ?f _ _ _ _ _ |- _ => progress injection H as H
  | H : ?f _ _ _ _ _ _ = ?f _ _ _ _ _ _ |- _ => progress injection H as H
221
  | H : ?x = ?x |- _ => clear H
222 223 224 225
    (* unclear how to generalize the below *)
  | H1 : ?o = Some ?x, H2 : ?o = Some ?y |- _ =>
    assert (y = x) by congruence; clear H2
  | H1 : ?o = Some ?x, H2 : ?o = None |- _ => congruence
226 227
  | H : @existT ?A _ _ _ = existT _ _ |- _ =>
     apply (Eqdep_dec.inj_pair2_eq_dec _ (decide_rel (@eq A))) in H
228
  end.
229 230 231
Tactic Notation "simplify_eq" "/=" :=
  repeat (progress csimpl in * || simplify_eq).
Tactic Notation "f_equal" "/=" := csimpl in *; f_equal.
232

Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
233
Ltac setoid_subst_aux R x :=
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
234
  match goal with
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
235
  | H : R x ?y |- _ =>
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243
     is_var x;
     try match y with x _ => fail 2 end;
     repeat match goal with
     | |- context [ x ] => setoid_rewrite H
     | H' : context [ x ] |- _ =>
        try match H' with H => fail 2 end;
        setoid_rewrite H in H'
     end;
244
     clear x H
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
245 246 247
  end.
Ltac setoid_subst :=
  repeat match goal with
248
  | _ => progress simplify_eq/=
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
249 250
  | H : @equiv ?A ?e ?x _ |- _ => setoid_subst_aux (@equiv A e) x
  | H : @equiv ?A ?e _ ?x |- _ => symmetry in H; setoid_subst_aux (@equiv A e) x
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
251 252
  end.

253 254
(** f_equiv works on goals of the form [f _ = f _], for any relation and any
number of arguments. It looks for an appropriate [Proper] instance, and applies
255 256
it. The tactic is somewhat limited, since it cannot be used to backtrack on
the Proper instances that has been found. To that end, we try to ensure the
257 258 259
trivial instance in which the resulting goals have an [eq]. More generally,
when having [Proper (equiv ==> dist) f] and [Proper (dist ==> dist) f], it will
favor the second. *)
260
Ltac f_equiv :=
261 262
  match goal with
  | _ => reflexivity
263 264
  (* We support matches on both sides, *if* they concern the same variable, or
     variables in some relation. *)
265
  | |- ?R (match ?x with _ => _ end) (match ?x with _ => _ end) =>
266
    destruct x
267 268
  | H : ?R ?x ?y |- ?R2 (match ?x with _ => _ end) (match ?y with _ => _ end) =>
     destruct H
269
  (* First assume that the arguments need the same relation as the result *)
270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279
  | |- ?R (?f ?x) (?f _) => apply (_ : Proper (R ==> R) f)
  (* For the case in which R is polymorphic, or an operational type class,
  like equiv. *)
  | |- (?R _) (?f ?x) (?f _) => apply (_ : Proper (R _ ==> _) f)
  | |- (?R _ _) (?f ?x) (?f _) => apply (_ : Proper (R _ _ ==> _) f)
  | |- (?R _ _ _) (?f ?x) (?f _) => apply (_ : Proper (R _ _ _ ==> _) f)
  | |- (?R _) (?f ?x ?y) (?f _ _) => apply (_ : Proper (R _ ==> R _ ==> _) f)
  | |- (?R _ _) (?f ?x ?y) (?f _ _) => apply (_ : Proper (R _ _ ==> R _ _ ==> _) f)
  | |- (?R _ _ _) (?f ?x ?y) (?f _ _) => apply (_ : Proper (R _ _ _ ==> R _ _ _ ==> _) f)
  | |- (?R _ _ _ _) (?f ?x ?y) (?f _ _) => apply (_ : Proper (R _ _ _ _ ==> R _ _ _ _ ==> _) f)
280 281 282 283 284 285
  (* 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. *)
286 287
  | |- ?R (?f ?x) (?f _) => apply (_ : Proper (_ ==> R) f)
  | |- ?R (?f ?x ?y) (?f _ _) => apply (_ : Proper (_ ==> _ ==> R) f)
288 289
   (* In case the function symbol differs, but the arguments are the same,
      maybe we have a pointwise_relation in our context. *)
290
  | H : pointwise_relation _ ?R ?f ?g |- ?R (?f ?x) (?g ?x) => apply H
291
  end.
292

293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303
(** 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. *)
304
  try (f_equiv; fast_done || auto_proper).
305

306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313
(** 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
    head symbol. *)
Ltac solve_proper :=
  (* Introduce everything *)
  intros;
  repeat lazymatch goal with
314 315
  | |- Proper _ _ => intros ???
  | |- (_ ==> _)%signature _ _ => intros ???
316
  | |- pointwise_relation _ _ _ _ => intros ?
317 318
  | |- ?R ?f _ => try let f' := constr:(λ x, f x) in intros ?
  end; simpl;
319 320
  (* Unfold the head symbol, which is the one we are proving a new property about *)
  lazymatch goal with
321 322 323 324
  | |- ?R (?f _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _) (?f _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _) => unfold f
  | |- ?R (?f _ _ _ _ _ _ _) (?f _ _ _ _ _ _ _) => unfold f
  | |- ?R (?f _ _ _ _ _ _) (?f _ _ _ _ _ _) => unfold f
  | |- ?R (?f _ _ _ _ _) (?f _ _ _ _ _) => unfold f
325 326 327 328 329
  | |- ?R (?f _ _ _ _) (?f _ _ _ _) => unfold f
  | |- ?R (?f _ _ _) (?f _ _ _) => unfold f
  | |- ?R (?f _ _) (?f _ _) => unfold f
  | |- ?R (?f _) (?f _) => unfold f
  end;
330
  solve [ auto_proper ].
331

332 333 334 335 336 337 338
(** The tactic [intros_revert tac] introduces all foralls/arrows, performs tac,
and then reverts them. *)
Ltac intros_revert tac :=
  lazymatch goal with
  | |-  _, _ => let H := fresh in intro H; intros_revert tac; revert H
  | |- _ => tac
  end.
339

340 341 342 343
(** Given a tactic [tac2] generating a list of terms, [iter tac1 tac2]
runs [tac x] for each element [x] until [tac x] succeeds. If it does not
suceed for any element of the generated list, the whole tactic wil fail. *)
Tactic Notation "iter" tactic(tac) tactic(l) :=
344
  let rec go l :=
345
  match l with ?x :: ?l => tac x || go l end in go l.
346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366

(** Given H : [A_1 → ... → A_n → B] (where each [A_i] is non-dependent), the
tactic [feed tac H tac_by] creates a subgoal for each [A_i] and calls [tac p]
with the generated proof [p] of [B]. *)
Tactic Notation "feed" tactic(tac) constr(H) :=
  let rec go H :=
  let T := type of H in
  lazymatch eval hnf in T with
  | ?T1  ?T2 =>
    (* Use a separate counter for fresh names to make it more likely that
    the generated name is "fresh" with respect to those generated before
    calling the [feed] tactic. In particular, this hack makes sure that
    tactics like [let H' := fresh in feed (fun p => pose proof p as H') H] do
    not break. *)
    let HT1 := fresh "feed" in assert T1 as HT1;
      [| go (H HT1); clear HT1 ]
  | ?T1 => tac H
  end in go H.

(** The tactic [efeed tac H] is similar to [feed], but it also instantiates
dependent premises of [H] with evars. *)
367
Tactic Notation "efeed" constr(H) "using" tactic3(tac) "by" tactic3 (bytac) :=
368 369 370 371 372
  let rec go H :=
  let T := type of H in
  lazymatch eval hnf in T with
  | ?T1  ?T2 =>
    let HT1 := fresh "feed" in assert T1 as HT1;
373
      [bytac | go (H HT1); clear HT1 ]
374 375 376 377 378 379
  | ?T1  _ =>
    let e := fresh "feed" in evar (e:T1);
    let e' := eval unfold e in e in
    clear e; go (H e')
  | ?T1 => tac H
  end in go H.
380 381
Tactic Notation "efeed" constr(H) "using" tactic3(tac) :=
  efeed H using tac by idtac.
382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390

(** The following variants of [pose proof], [specialize], [inversion], and
[destruct], use the [feed] tactic before invoking the actual tactic. *)
Tactic Notation "feed" "pose" "proof" constr(H) "as" ident(H') :=
  feed (fun p => pose proof p as H') H.
Tactic Notation "feed" "pose" "proof" constr(H) :=
  feed (fun p => pose proof p) H.

Tactic Notation "efeed" "pose" "proof" constr(H) "as" ident(H') :=
391
  efeed H using (fun p => pose proof p as H').
392
Tactic Notation "efeed" "pose" "proof" constr(H) :=
393
  efeed H using (fun p => pose proof p).
394 395 396 397

Tactic Notation "feed" "specialize" hyp(H) :=
  feed (fun p => specialize p) H.
Tactic Notation "efeed" "specialize" hyp(H) :=
398
  efeed H using (fun p => specialize p).
399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409

Tactic Notation "feed" "inversion" constr(H) :=
  feed (fun p => let H':=fresh in pose proof p as H'; inversion H') H.
Tactic Notation "feed" "inversion" constr(H) "as" simple_intropattern(IP) :=
  feed (fun p => let H':=fresh in pose proof p as H'; inversion H' as IP) H.

Tactic Notation "feed" "destruct" constr(H) :=
  feed (fun p => let H':=fresh in pose proof p as H'; destruct H') H.
Tactic Notation "feed" "destruct" constr(H) "as" simple_intropattern(IP) :=
  feed (fun p => let H':=fresh in pose proof p as H'; destruct H' as IP) H.

410 411 412 413 414

(** The following tactic can be used to add support for patterns to tactic notation:
It will search for the first subterm of the goal matching [pat], and then call [tac]
with that subterm. *)
Ltac find_pat pat tac :=
415
  match goal with |- context [?x] =>
416 417
                  unify pat x with typeclass_instances;
                  tryif tac x then idtac else fail 2
418 419
end.

420
(** Coq's [firstorder] tactic fails or loops on rather small goals already. In 
421 422 423 424
particular, on those generated by the tactic [unfold_elem_ofs] which is used
to solve propositions on collections. The [naive_solver] tactic implements an
ad-hoc and incomplete [firstorder]-like solver using Ltac's backtracking
mechanism. The tactic suffers from the following limitations:
425
- It might leave unresolved evars as Ltac provides no way to detect that.
426 427
- To avoid the tactic becoming too slow, we allow a universally quantified
  hypothesis to be instantiated only once during each search path.
428 429 430
- It does not perform backtracking on instantiation of universally quantified
  assumptions.

431 432 433 434
We use a counter to make the search breath first. Breath first search ensures
that a minimal number of hypotheses is instantiated, and thus reduced the
posibility that an evar remains unresolved.

435 436 437
Despite these limitations, it works much better than Coq's [firstorder] tactic
for the purposes of this development. This tactic either fails or proves the
goal. *)
438 439 440 441
Lemma forall_and_distr (A : Type) (P Q : A  Prop) :
  ( x, P x  Q x)  ( x, P x)  ( x, Q x).
Proof. firstorder. Qed.

442 443 444 445 446 447
(** The tactic [no_new_unsolved_evars tac] executes [tac] and fails if it
creates any new evars. This trick is by Jonathan Leivent, see:
https://coq.inria.fr/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=3872 *)

Ltac no_new_unsolved_evars tac := exact ltac:(tac).

448 449
Tactic Notation "naive_solver" tactic(tac) :=
  unfold iff, not in *;
450 451
  repeat match goal with
  | H : context [ _, _  _ ] |- _ =>
452
    repeat setoid_rewrite forall_and_distr in H; revert H
453
  end;
454
  let rec go n :=
455 456 457 458 459 460 461
  repeat match goal with
  (**i intros *)
  | |-  _, _ => intro
  (**i simplification of assumptions *)
  | H : False |- _ => destruct H
  | H : _  _ |- _ => destruct H
  | H :  _, _  |- _ => destruct H
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
462
  | H : ?P  ?Q, H2 : ?P |- _ => specialize (H H2)
463 464
  | H : Is_true (bool_decide _) |- _ => apply (bool_decide_unpack _) in H
  | H : Is_true (_ && _) |- _ => apply andb_True in H; destruct H
465
  (**i simplify and solve equalities *)
466
  | |- _ => progress simplify_eq/=
467
  (**i solve the goal *)
468 469 470 471 472 473
  | |- _ =>
    solve
    [ eassumption
    | symmetry; eassumption
    | apply not_symmetry; eassumption
    | reflexivity ]
474 475
  (**i operations that generate more subgoals *)
  | |- _  _ => split
476 477
  | |- Is_true (bool_decide _) => apply (bool_decide_pack _)
  | |- Is_true (_ && _) => apply andb_True; split
478 479 480 481
  | H : _  _ |- _ => destruct H
  (**i solve the goal using the user supplied tactic *)
  | |- _ => solve [tac]
  end;
482 483 484
  (**i use recursion to enable backtracking on the following clauses. *)
  match goal with
  (**i instantiation of the conclusion *)
485
  | |-  x, _ => no_new_unsolved_evars ltac:(eexists; go n)
486 487 488 489 490 491
  | |- _  _ => first [left; go n | right; go n]
  | _ =>
    (**i instantiations of assumptions. *)
    lazymatch n with
    | S ?n' =>
      (**i we give priority to assumptions that fit on the conclusion. *)
492
      match goal with
493 494
      | H : _  _ |- _ =>
        is_non_dependent H;
495 496
        no_new_unsolved_evars
          ltac:(first [eapply H | efeed pose proof H]; clear H; go n')
497 498 499
      end
    end
  end
500
  in iter (fun n' => go n') (eval compute in (seq 1 6)).
501
Tactic Notation "naive_solver" := naive_solver eauto.