tactics.v 18.7 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 7
From Coq Require Import Omega.
From Coq Require Export Psatz.
From stdpp Require Export base.
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 37
Tactic Notation "intuition" := intuition auto.

(** A slightly modified version of Ssreflect's finishing tactic [done]. It
38 39 40 41
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]. *)
42 43
Ltac done :=
  trivial; intros; solve
44 45 46
  [ repeat first
    [ solve [trivial]
    | solve [symmetry; trivial]
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
47
    | eassumption
48 49 50 51 52 53
    | reflexivity
    | discriminate
    | contradiction
    | solve [apply not_symmetry; trivial]
    | split ]
  | match goal with H : ¬_ |- _ => solve [destruct H; trivial] end ].
54 55 56
Tactic Notation "by" tactic(tac) :=
  tac; done.

57 58 59 60
(** Aliases for trans and etrans that are easier to type *)
Tactic Notation "trans" constr(A) := transitivity A.
Tactic Notation "etrans" := etransitivity.

61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
(** 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. *)
Tactic Notation "split_and" := match goal with |- _  _ => split end.
Tactic Notation "split_and" "?" := repeat split_and.
Tactic Notation "split_and" "!" := hnf; split_and; split_and?.
75 76 77 78

(** 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. *)
79 80 81 82 83 84
Ltac case_match :=
  match goal with
  | H : context [ match ?x with _ => _ end ] |- _ => destruct x eqn:?
  | |- context [ match ?x with _ => _ end ] => destruct x eqn:?
  end.

85 86 87 88
(** 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].
89 90 91 92 93 94

(** 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.

95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119
(** 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
120
hypotheses depend on [H]. *)
121 122 123 124 125 126 127
Tactic Notation "is_non_dependent" constr(H) :=
  match goal with
  | _ : context [ H ] |- _ => fail 1
  | |- context [ H ] => fail 1
  | _ => idtac
  end.

128 129
(** The tactic [var_eq x y] fails if [x] and [y] are unequal, and [var_neq]
does the converse. *)
130 131 132
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
133 134 135 136 137 138 139
(** 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 *)
140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157
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.
158 159 160
Ltac fold_classes_hyps H :=
  repeat match type of H with
  | appcontext [ ?F ] =>
161 162
    progress match type of F with
    | FMap _ =>
163 164
       change F with (@fmap _ F) in H;
       repeat change (@fmap _ (@fmap _ F)) with (@fmap _ F) in H
165
    | MBind _ =>
166 167
       change F with (@mbind _ F) in H;
       repeat change (@mbind _ (@mbind _ F)) with (@mbind _ F) in H
168
    | OMap _ =>
169 170
       change F with (@omap _ F) in H;
       repeat change (@omap _ (@omap _ F)) with (@omap _ F) in H
171
    | Alter _ _ _ =>
172 173
       change F with (@alter _ _ _ F) in H;
       repeat change (@alter _ _ _ (@alter _ _ _ F)) with (@alter _ _ _ F) in H
174 175
    end
  end.
176 177
Tactic Notation "csimpl" "in" hyp(H) :=
  try (progress simpl in H; fold_classes_hyps H).
178
Tactic Notation "csimpl" := try (progress simpl; fold_classes).
179 180
Tactic Notation "csimpl" "in" "*" :=
  repeat_on_hyps (fun H => csimpl in H); csimpl.
181

Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
182
(** The tactic [simplify_eq] repeatedly substitutes, discriminates,
183 184
and injects equalities, and tries to contradict impossible inequalities. *)
Tactic Notation "simplify_eq" := repeat
185
  match goal with
186 187 188 189
  | H : _  _ |- _ => by destruct H
  | H : _ = _  False |- _ => by destruct H
  | H : ?x = _ |- _ => subst x
  | H : _ = ?x |- _ => subst x
190
  | H : _ = _ |- _ => discriminate H
191
  | H : _  _ |- _ => apply leibniz_equiv in H
192 193
  | 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
194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201
    (* before [injection] to circumvent bug #2939 in some situations *)
  | H : ?f _ = ?f _ |- _ => injection H as H
    (* first hyp will be named [H], subsequent hyps will be given fresh names *)
  | H : ?f _ _ = ?f _ _ |- _ => injection H as H
  | H : ?f _ _ _ = ?f _ _ _ |- _ => injection H as H
  | H : ?f _ _ _ _ = ?f _ _ _ _ |- _ => injection H as H
  | H : ?f _ _ _ _ _ = ?f _ _ _ _ _ |- _ => injection H as H
  | H : ?f _ _ _ _ _ _ = ?f _ _ _ _ _ _ |- _ => injection H as H
202
  | H : ?x = ?x |- _ => clear H
203 204 205 206
    (* 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
207
  end.
208 209 210
Tactic Notation "simplify_eq" "/=" :=
  repeat (progress csimpl in * || simplify_eq).
Tactic Notation "f_equal" "/=" := csimpl in *; f_equal.
211

Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
212
Ltac setoid_subst_aux R x :=
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
213
  match goal with
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
214
  | H : R x ?y |- _ =>
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222
     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;
223
     clear x H
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
224 225 226
  end.
Ltac setoid_subst :=
  repeat match goal with
227
  | _ => progress simplify_eq/=
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
228 229
  | 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
230 231
  end.

232 233 234 235 236
(** f_equiv solves goals of the form "f _ = f _", for any relation and any
    number of arguments, by looking for appropriate "Proper" instances.
    If it cannot solve an equality, it will leave that to the user. *)
Ltac f_equiv :=
  (* Deal with "pointwise_relation" *)
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
237
  repeat lazymatch goal with
238 239
  | |- pointwise_relation _ _ _ _ => intros ?
  end;
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
240
  (* Normalize away equalities. *)
241
  simplify_eq;
242
  (* repeatedly apply congruence lemmas and use the equalities in the hypotheses. *)
243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
  try match goal with
  | _ => first [ reflexivity | assumption | symmetry; assumption]
  (* We support matches on both sides, *if* they concern the same
     variable.
     TODO: We should support different variables, provided that we can
     derive contradictions for the off-diagonal cases. *)
  | |- ?R (match ?x with _ => _ end) (match ?x with _ => _ end) =>
    destruct x; f_equiv
  (* First assume that the arguments need the same relation as the result *)
  | |- ?R (?f ?x) (?f _) =>
    apply (_ : Proper (R ==> R) f); f_equiv
  | |- ?R (?f ?x ?y) (?f _ _) =>
    apply (_ : Proper (R ==> R ==> R) f); f_equiv
  (* 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. *)
  | |- ?R (?f ?x) (?f _) =>
    apply (_ : Proper (_ ==> R) f); f_equiv
  | |- ?R (?f ?x ?y) (?f _ _) =>
    apply (_ : Proper (_ ==> _ ==> R) f); f_equiv
   (* In case the function symbol differs, but the arguments are the same,
      maybe we have a pointwise_relation in our context. *)
  | H : pointwise_relation _ ?R ?f ?g |- ?R (?f ?x) (?g ?x) =>
     apply H; f_equiv
  end.
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279

(** 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
280 281 282
  | |- Proper _ _ => intros ???
  | |- (_ ==> _)%signature _ _ => intros ???
  end;
283 284
  (* Unfold the head symbol, which is the one we are proving a new property about *)
  lazymatch goal with
285 286 287 288
  | |- ?R (?f _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _) (?f _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _) => unfold f
  | |- ?R (?f _ _ _ _ _ _ _) (?f _ _ _ _ _ _ _) => unfold f
  | |- ?R (?f _ _ _ _ _ _) (?f _ _ _ _ _ _) => unfold f
  | |- ?R (?f _ _ _ _ _) (?f _ _ _ _ _) => unfold f
289 290 291 292 293 294 295
  | |- ?R (?f _ _ _ _) (?f _ _ _ _) => unfold f
  | |- ?R (?f _ _ _) (?f _ _ _) => unfold f
  | |- ?R (?f _ _) (?f _ _) => unfold f
  | |- ?R (?f _) (?f _) => unfold f
  end;
  solve [ f_equiv ].

296 297 298 299 300 301 302
(** 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.
303

304 305 306 307
(** 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) :=
308
  let rec go l :=
309
  match l with ?x :: ?l => tac x || go l end in go l.
310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330

(** 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. *)
331
Tactic Notation "efeed" constr(H) "using" tactic3(tac) "by" tactic3 (bytac) :=
332 333 334 335 336
  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;
337
      [bytac | go (H HT1); clear HT1 ]
338 339 340 341 342 343
  | ?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.
344 345
Tactic Notation "efeed" constr(H) "using" tactic3(tac) :=
  efeed H using tac by idtac.
346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354

(** 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') :=
355
  efeed H using (fun p => pose proof p as H').
356
Tactic Notation "efeed" "pose" "proof" constr(H) :=
357
  efeed H using (fun p => pose proof p).
358 359 360 361

Tactic Notation "feed" "specialize" hyp(H) :=
  feed (fun p => specialize p) H.
Tactic Notation "efeed" "specialize" hyp(H) :=
362
  efeed H using (fun p => specialize p).
363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373

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.

374 375 376 377 378

(** 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 :=
379
  match goal with |- context [?x] =>
380 381
                  unify pat x with typeclass_instances;
                  tryif tac x then idtac else fail 2
382 383
end.

384
(** Coq's [firstorder] tactic fails or loops on rather small goals already. In 
385 386 387 388
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:
389
- It might leave unresolved evars as Ltac provides no way to detect that.
390 391
- To avoid the tactic becoming too slow, we allow a universally quantified
  hypothesis to be instantiated only once during each search path.
392 393 394
- It does not perform backtracking on instantiation of universally quantified
  assumptions.

395 396 397 398
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.

399 400 401
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. *)
402 403 404 405
Lemma forall_and_distr (A : Type) (P Q : A  Prop) :
  ( x, P x  Q x)  ( x, P x)  ( x, Q x).
Proof. firstorder. Qed.

406 407 408 409 410 411
(** 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).

412 413
Tactic Notation "naive_solver" tactic(tac) :=
  unfold iff, not in *;
414 415
  repeat match goal with
  | H : context [ _, _  _ ] |- _ =>
416
    repeat setoid_rewrite forall_and_distr in H; revert H
417
  end;
418
  let rec go n :=
419 420 421 422 423 424 425
  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
426
  | H : ?P  ?Q, H2 : ?P |- _ => specialize (H H2)
427
  (**i simplify and solve equalities *)
428
  | |- _ => progress simplify_eq/=
429
  (**i solve the goal *)
430 431 432 433 434 435
  | |- _ =>
    solve
    [ eassumption
    | symmetry; eassumption
    | apply not_symmetry; eassumption
    | reflexivity ]
436 437 438 439 440 441
  (**i operations that generate more subgoals *)
  | |- _  _ => split
  | H : _  _ |- _ => destruct H
  (**i solve the goal using the user supplied tactic *)
  | |- _ => solve [tac]
  end;
442 443 444
  (**i use recursion to enable backtracking on the following clauses. *)
  match goal with
  (**i instantiation of the conclusion *)
445
  | |-  x, _ => no_new_unsolved_evars ltac:(eexists; go n)
446 447 448 449 450 451
  | |- _  _ => 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. *)
452
      match goal with
453 454
      | H : _  _ |- _ =>
        is_non_dependent H;
455 456
        no_new_unsolved_evars
          ltac:(first [eapply H | efeed pose proof H]; clear H; go n')
457 458 459
      end
    end
  end
460
  in iter (fun n' => go n') (eval compute in (seq 1 6)).
461
Tactic Notation "naive_solver" := naive_solver eauto.