tactics.v 13.3 KB
Newer Older
1
(* Copyright (c) 2012-2013, 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
Require Export Psatz.
6 7
Require Export base.

8 9 10 11 12
(** 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.
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Hint Extern 1000 => lia : lia.

(** The tactic [intuition] expands to [intuition auto with *] by default. This
is rather efficient when having big hint databases, or expensive [Hint Extern]
declarations as the above. *)
Tactic Notation "intuition" := intuition auto.

(** A slightly modified version of Ssreflect's finishing tactic [done]. It
21 22 23 24
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]. *)
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Ltac done :=
  trivial; intros; solve
    [ repeat first
      [ solve [trivial]
      | solve [symmetry; trivial]
      | reflexivity
      | discriminate
      | contradiction
33
      | solve [apply not_symmetry; trivial]
34 35 36 37 38 39 40
      | split ]
    | match goal with
      H : ¬_ |- _ => solve [destruct H; trivial]
      end ].
Tactic Notation "by" tactic(tac) :=
  tac; done.

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
(** Whereas the [split] tactic splits any inductive with one constructor, the
tactic [split_and] only splits a conjunction. *)
Ltac split_and :=
  match goal with
  | |- _  _ => split
  end.
Ltac split_ands := repeat split_and.

(** 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. *)
52 53 54 55 56 57
Ltac case_match :=
  match goal with
  | H : context [ match ?x with _ => _ end ] |- _ => destruct x eqn:?
  | |- context [ match ?x with _ => _ end ] => destruct x eqn:?
  end.

58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71
(** The tactic [assert T unless tac_fail by tac_success] is used to assert
[T] only if it is not provable by [tac_fail]. This is useful to build other
tactics where only propositions that are not trivially provable are being
asserted. *)
Tactic Notation "assert" constr(T)
    "unless" tactic3(tac_fail) "by" tactic3(tac_success)  := first
  [ assert T by tac_fail; fail 1
  | assert T by tac_success ].

(** 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.

72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
(** 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.

96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128
(** The tactic [first_of t ft ot] calls [t] and then calls [ft] on the first
subgoal generated by [t], and [ot] on the other subgoals. *)
Ltac first_of t ft ot :=
     solve [t]
  || (t; [ ft ])
  || (t; [ ft | ot ])
  || (t; [ ft | ot | ot ])
  || (t; [ ft | ot | ot | ot ])
  || (t; [ ft | ot | ot | ot | ot ])
  || (t; [ ft | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot ])
  || (t; [ ft | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot ])
  || (t; [ ft | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot ])
  || (t; [ ft | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot ])
  || (t; [ ft | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot ])
  || (t; [ ft | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot ])
  || (t; [ ft | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot ])
  || (t; [ ft | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot ]).

Ltac last_of t ot lt :=
     solve [t]
  || (t; [ lt ])
  || (t; [ ot | lt ])
  || (t; [ ot | ot | lt ])
  || (t; [ ot | ot | ot | lt ])
  || (t; [ ot | ot | ot | ot | lt ])
  || (t; [ ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | lt ])
  || (t; [ ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | lt ])
  || (t; [ ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | lt ])
  || (t; [ ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | lt ])
  || (t; [ ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | lt ])
  || (t; [ ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | lt ])
  || (t; [ ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | lt ])
  || (t; [ ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | ot | lt ]).
129 130

(** The tactic [is_non_dependent H] determines whether the goal's conclusion or
131
hypotheses depend on [H]. *)
132 133 134 135 136 137 138
Tactic Notation "is_non_dependent" constr(H) :=
  match goal with
  | _ : context [ H ] |- _ => fail 1
  | |- context [ H ] => fail 1
  | _ => idtac
  end.

139 140
(** The tactic [var_eq x y] fails if [x] and [y] are unequal, and [var_neq]
does the converse. *)
141 142 143
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.

144 145 146 147 148
(** The tactics [block_hyps] and [unblock_hyps] can be used to temporarily mark
certain hypothesis as being blocked. The tactic changes all hypothesis [H: T]
into [H: blocked T], where [blocked] is the identity function. If a hypothesis
is already blocked, it will not be blocked again. The tactic [unblock_hyps]
removes [blocked] everywhere. *)
149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161

Ltac block_hyps := repeat_on_hyps (fun H =>
  match type of H with
  | block _ => idtac
  | ?T => change (block T) in H
  end).
Ltac unblock_hyps := unfold block in * |-.

(** The tactic [injection' H] is a variant of injection that introduces the
generated equalities. *)
Ltac injection' H :=
  block_goal; injection H; clear H; intros; unblock_goal.

162 163 164 165
(** The tactic [simplify_equality] repeatedly substitutes, discriminates,
and injects equalities, and tries to contradict impossible inequalities. *)
Ltac simplify_equality := repeat
  match goal with
166 167 168 169
  | H : _  _ |- _ => by destruct H
  | H : _ = _  False |- _ => by destruct H
  | H : ?x = _ |- _ => subst x
  | H : _ = ?x |- _ => subst x
170
  | H : _ = _ |- _ => discriminate H
171 172 173 174
  | H : ?f _ = ?f _ |- _ => apply (injective f) in H
    (* before [injection'] to circumvent bug #2939 in some situations *)
  | H : _ = _ |- _ => injection' H
  | H : ?x = ?x |- _ => clear H
175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184
  end.

(** Coq's default [remember] tactic does have an option to name the generated
equality. The following tactic extends [remember] to do so. *)
Tactic Notation "remember" constr(t) "as" "(" ident(x) "," ident(E) ")" :=
  remember t as x;
  match goal with
  | E' : x = _ |- _ => rename E' into E
  end.

185 186 187 188
(** 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) :=
189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213
  let rec go l :=
  match l with
  | ?x :: ?l => tac x || go l
  end in go l.

(** 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. *)
214
Tactic Notation "efeed" constr(H) "using" tactic3(tac) "by" tactic3 (bytac) :=
215 216 217 218 219
  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;
220
      [bytac | go (H HT1); clear HT1 ]
221 222 223 224 225 226
  | ?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.
227 228
Tactic Notation "efeed" constr(H) "using" tactic3(tac) :=
  efeed H using tac by idtac.
229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237

(** 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') :=
238
  efeed H using (fun p => pose proof p as H').
239
Tactic Notation "efeed" "pose" "proof" constr(H) :=
240
  efeed H using (fun p => pose proof p).
241 242 243 244

Tactic Notation "feed" "specialize" hyp(H) :=
  feed (fun p => specialize p) H.
Tactic Notation "efeed" "specialize" hyp(H) :=
245
  efeed H using (fun p => specialize p).
246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272

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.

(** Coq's [firstorder] tactic fails or loops on rather small goals already. In 
particular, on those generated by the tactic [unfold_elem_ofs] 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:
- It might leave unresolved evars as Ltac provides no way to detect that.
- To avoid the tactic going into pointless loops, it just does not allow a
  universally quantified hypothesis to be used more than once.
- It does not perform backtracking on instantiation of universally quantified
  assumptions.

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. *)
Tactic Notation "naive_solver" tactic(tac) :=
  unfold iff, not in *;
273
  let rec go n :=
274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284
  repeat match goal with
  (**i intros *)
  | |-  _, _ => intro
  (**i simplification of assumptions *)
  | H : False |- _ => destruct H
  | H : _  _ |- _ => destruct H
  | H :  _, _  |- _ => destruct H
  (**i simplify and solve equalities *)
  | |- _ => progress simpl in *
  | |- _ => progress simplify_equality
  (**i solve the goal *)
285 286 287 288 289
  | |- _ => solve
            [ eassumption
            | symmetry; eassumption
            | apply not_symmetry; eassumption
            | reflexivity ]
290 291 292 293 294 295
  (**i operations that generate more subgoals *)
  | |- _  _ => split
  | H : _  _ |- _ => destruct H
  (**i solve the goal using the user supplied tactic *)
  | |- _ => solve [tac]
  end;
296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328
  (**i use recursion to enable backtracking on the following clauses. We use
  a counter to minimize the number of instantiations, and thus to reduce the
  number of potentially unresolved meta variables. *)
  first
  [ iter (fun n' =>
    match goal with 
    (**i instantiations of assumptions *)
    | H : _  _ |- _ =>
      is_non_dependent H;
      eapply H; clear H; go n'
    | H : _  _ |- _ =>
      is_non_dependent H;
      (**i create subgoals for all premises *)
      efeed H using (fun p =>
        match type of p with
        | _  _ =>
          let H' := fresh in pose proof p as H'; destruct H'
        |  _, _ =>
          let H' := fresh in pose proof p as H'; destruct H'
        | _  _ =>
          let H' := fresh in pose proof p as H'; destruct H'
        | False =>
          let H' := fresh in pose proof p as H'; destruct H'
        end) by (clear H; go n');
      (**i solve these subgoals, but clear [H] to avoid loops *)
      clear H; go n
    end) (eval compute in (seq 0 n))
  | match goal with
    (**i instantiation of the conclusion *)
    | |-  x, _ => eexists; go n
    | |- _  _ => first [left; go n | right; go n]
    end]
  in go 10.
329
Tactic Notation "naive_solver" := naive_solver eauto.