tactics.v 21.4 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
From Coq Require Import Omega.
6
From Coq Require Export Lia.
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
(* [done] can get slow as it calls "trivial". [fast_done] can solve way less
38 39 40 41
   goals, but it will also always finish quickly.
   We do 'reflexivity' last because for goals of the form ?x = y, if
   we have x = y in the context, we will typically want to use the
   assumption and not reflexivity *)
42
Ltac fast_done :=
43
  solve [ eassumption | symmetry; eassumption | reflexivity ].
44 45 46
Tactic Notation "fast_by" tactic(tac) :=
  tac; fast_done.

47
(** A slightly modified version of Ssreflect's finishing tactic [done]. It
48 49 50 51
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]. *)
52 53
Ltac done :=
  trivial; intros; solve
54
  [ repeat first
55 56
    [ fast_done
    | solve [trivial]
57 58 59 60 61
    | solve [symmetry; trivial]
    | discriminate
    | contradiction
    | solve [apply not_symmetry; trivial]
    | split ]
62
  | match goal with H : ¬_ |- _ => solve [case H; trivial] end ].
63 64 65
Tactic Notation "by" tactic(tac) :=
  tac; done.

66 67 68 69
(** Aliases for trans and etrans that are easier to type *)
Tactic Notation "trans" constr(A) := transitivity A.
Tactic Notation "etrans" := etransitivity.

70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
(** 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. *)
81 82 83 84 85
Tactic Notation "split_and" :=
  match goal with
  | |- _  _ => split
  | |- Is_true (_ && _) => apply andb_True; split
  end.
86 87
Tactic Notation "split_and" "?" := repeat split_and.
Tactic Notation "split_and" "!" := hnf; split_and; split_and?.
88

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97
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?).

98 99 100
(** 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. *)
101 102 103 104 105 106
Ltac case_match :=
  match goal with
  | H : context [ match ?x with _ => _ end ] |- _ => destruct x eqn:?
  | |- context [ match ?x with _ => _ end ] => destruct x eqn:?
  end.

107 108 109 110
(** 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].
111 112 113 114 115 116

(** 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.

117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141
(** 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
142
hypotheses depend on [H]. *)
143 144 145 146 147 148 149
Tactic Notation "is_non_dependent" constr(H) :=
  match goal with
  | _ : context [ H ] |- _ => fail 1
  | |- context [ H ] => fail 1
  | _ => idtac
  end.

150 151
(** The tactic [var_eq x y] fails if [x] and [y] are unequal, and [var_neq]
does the converse. *)
152 153 154
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
155 156 157 158 159 160 161
(** 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 *)
162 163
Ltac fold_classes :=
  repeat match goal with
164
  | |- context [ ?F ] =>
165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179
    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.
180 181
Ltac fold_classes_hyps H :=
  repeat match type of H with
182
  | context [ ?F ] =>
183 184
    progress match type of F with
    | FMap _ =>
185 186
       change F with (@fmap _ F) in H;
       repeat change (@fmap _ (@fmap _ F)) with (@fmap _ F) in H
187
    | MBind _ =>
188 189
       change F with (@mbind _ F) in H;
       repeat change (@mbind _ (@mbind _ F)) with (@mbind _ F) in H
190
    | OMap _ =>
191 192
       change F with (@omap _ F) in H;
       repeat change (@omap _ (@omap _ F)) with (@omap _ F) in H
193
    | Alter _ _ _ =>
194 195
       change F with (@alter _ _ _ F) in H;
       repeat change (@alter _ _ _ (@alter _ _ _ F)) with (@alter _ _ _ F) in H
196 197
    end
  end.
198 199
Tactic Notation "csimpl" "in" hyp(H) :=
  try (progress simpl in H; fold_classes_hyps H).
200
Tactic Notation "csimpl" := try (progress simpl; fold_classes).
201 202
Tactic Notation "csimpl" "in" "*" :=
  repeat_on_hyps (fun H => csimpl in H); csimpl.
203

Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
204
(** The tactic [simplify_eq] repeatedly substitutes, discriminates,
205 206
and injects equalities, and tries to contradict impossible inequalities. *)
Tactic Notation "simplify_eq" := repeat
207
  match goal with
208 209 210 211
  | H : _  _ |- _ => by destruct H
  | H : _ = _  False |- _ => by destruct H
  | H : ?x = _ |- _ => subst x
  | H : _ = ?x |- _ => subst x
212
  | H : _ = _ |- _ => discriminate H
213
  | H : _  _ |- _ => apply leibniz_equiv in H
214 215
  | 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
216
    (* before [injection] to circumvent bug #2939 in some situations *)
217
  | H : ?f _ = ?f _ |- _ => progress injection H as H
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
218
    (* first hyp will be named [H], subsequent hyps will be given fresh names *)
219 220 221 222 223
  | 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
224
  | H : ?x = ?x |- _ => clear H
225 226 227 228
    (* 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
229 230
  | H : @existT ?A _ _ _ = existT _ _ |- _ =>
     apply (Eqdep_dec.inj_pair2_eq_dec _ (decide_rel (@eq A))) in H
231
  end.
232 233 234
Tactic Notation "simplify_eq" "/=" :=
  repeat (progress csimpl in * || simplify_eq).
Tactic Notation "f_equal" "/=" := csimpl in *; f_equal.
235

Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
236
Ltac setoid_subst_aux R x :=
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
237
  match goal with
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
238
  | H : R x ?y |- _ =>
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246
     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;
247
     clear x H
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
248 249 250
  end.
Ltac setoid_subst :=
  repeat match goal with
251
  | _ => progress simplify_eq/=
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
252 253
  | 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
254 255
  end.

256 257
(** 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
258
it. The tactic is somewhat limited, since it cannot be used to backtrack on
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
259
the Proper instances that has been found. To that end, we try to avoid the
260
trivial instance in which the resulting goals have an [eq]. More generally,
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
261
we try to "maintain" the relation of the current goal. For example,
262
when having [Proper (equiv ==> dist) f] and [Proper (dist ==> dist) f], it will
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
263
favor the second because the relation (dist) stays the same. *)
264
Ltac f_equiv :=
265 266
  match goal with
  | _ => reflexivity
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
267 268
  (* We support matches on both sides, *if* they concern the same variable, or
     variables in some relation. *)
269
  | |- ?R (match ?x with _ => _ end) (match ?x with _ => _ end) =>
270
    destruct x
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
271 272
  | H : ?R ?x ?y |- ?R2 (match ?x with _ => _ end) (match ?y with _ => _ end) =>
     destruct H
273
  (* First assume that the arguments need the same relation as the result *)
274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283
  | |- ?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)
284 285 286 287 288 289
  (* 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. *)
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
290 291
  | |- ?R (?f ?x) (?f _) => apply (_ : Proper (_ ==> R) f)
  | |- ?R (?f ?x ?y) (?f _ _) => apply (_ : Proper (_ ==> _ ==> R) f)
292 293
   (* In case the function symbol differs, but the arguments are the same,
      maybe we have a pointwise_relation in our context. *)
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
294
  | H : pointwise_relation _ ?R ?f ?g |- ?R (?f ?x) (?g ?x) => apply H
295
  end.
296

297
(** auto_proper solves goals of the form "f _ = f _", for any relation and any
298
    number of arguments, by repeatedly applying f_equiv and handling trivial cases.
299
    If it cannot solve an equality, it will leave that to the user. *)
300
Ltac auto_equiv :=
301 302 303 304 305 306 307
  (* 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. *)
308
  try (f_equiv; fast_done || auto_equiv).
309

310
(** solve_proper solves goals of the form "Proper (R1 ==> R2)", for any
311
    number of relations. All the actual work is done by auto_equiv;
312 313 314 315 316 317
    solve_proper just introduces the assumptions and unfolds the first
    head symbol. *)
Ltac solve_proper :=
  (* Introduce everything *)
  intros;
  repeat lazymatch goal with
318 319
  | |- Proper _ _ => intros ???
  | |- (_ ==> _)%signature _ _ => intros ???
320
  | |- pointwise_relation _ _ _ _ => intros ?
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
321 322
  | |- ?R ?f _ => try let f' := constr:(λ x, f x) in intros ?
  end; simpl;
323 324
  (* Unfold the head symbol, which is the one we are proving a new property about *)
  lazymatch goal with
325 326 327 328
  | |- ?R (?f _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _) (?f _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _) => unfold f
  | |- ?R (?f _ _ _ _ _ _ _) (?f _ _ _ _ _ _ _) => unfold f
  | |- ?R (?f _ _ _ _ _ _) (?f _ _ _ _ _ _) => unfold f
  | |- ?R (?f _ _ _ _ _) (?f _ _ _ _ _) => unfold f
329 330 331 332 333
  | |- ?R (?f _ _ _ _) (?f _ _ _ _) => unfold f
  | |- ?R (?f _ _ _) (?f _ _ _) => unfold f
  | |- ?R (?f _ _) (?f _ _) => unfold f
  | |- ?R (?f _) (?f _) => unfold f
  end;
334
  solve [ auto_equiv ].
335

336 337 338 339 340 341 342
(** 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.
343

344 345 346 347
(** 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) :=
348
  let rec go l :=
349
  match l with ?x :: ?l => tac x || go l end in go l.
350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370

(** 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. *)
371
Tactic Notation "efeed" constr(H) "using" tactic3(tac) "by" tactic3 (bytac) :=
372 373 374 375 376
  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;
377
      [bytac | go (H HT1); clear HT1 ]
378 379 380 381 382 383
  | ?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.
384 385
Tactic Notation "efeed" constr(H) "using" tactic3(tac) :=
  efeed H using tac by idtac.
386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394

(** 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') :=
395
  efeed H using (fun p => pose proof p as H').
396
Tactic Notation "efeed" "pose" "proof" constr(H) :=
397
  efeed H using (fun p => pose proof p).
398 399 400 401

Tactic Notation "feed" "specialize" hyp(H) :=
  feed (fun p => specialize p) H.
Tactic Notation "efeed" "specialize" hyp(H) :=
402
  efeed H using (fun p => specialize p).
403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413

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.

414 415 416 417 418 419 420
(** The block definitions are taken from [Coq.Program.Equality] and can be used
by tactics to separate their goal from hypotheses they generalize over. *)
Definition block {A : Type} (a : A) := a.

Ltac block_goal := match goal with [ |- ?T ] => change (block T) end.
Ltac unblock_goal := unfold block in *.

421 422 423 424 425

(** 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 :=
426 427 428 429 430
  match goal with
  |- context [?x] =>
      unify pat x with typeclass_instances;
      tryif tac x then idtac else fail 2
  end.
431

432
(** Coq's [firstorder] tactic fails or loops on rather small goals already. In 
433 434 435 436
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:
437
- It might leave unresolved evars as Ltac provides no way to detect that.
438 439
- To avoid the tactic becoming too slow, we allow a universally quantified
  hypothesis to be instantiated only once during each search path.
440 441 442
- It does not perform backtracking on instantiation of universally quantified
  assumptions.

443 444 445 446
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.

447 448 449
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. *)
450 451 452 453
Lemma forall_and_distr (A : Type) (P Q : A  Prop) :
  ( x, P x  Q x)  ( x, P x)  ( x, Q x).
Proof. firstorder. Qed.

454 455 456 457 458 459
(** 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).

460 461
Tactic Notation "naive_solver" tactic(tac) :=
  unfold iff, not in *;
462 463
  repeat match goal with
  | H : context [ _, _  _ ] |- _ =>
464
    repeat setoid_rewrite forall_and_distr in H; revert H
465
  end;
466
  let rec go n :=
467 468 469 470 471 472 473
  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
474
  | H : ?P  ?Q, H2 : ?P |- _ => specialize (H H2)
475 476
  | H : Is_true (bool_decide _) |- _ => apply (bool_decide_unpack _) in H
  | H : Is_true (_ && _) |- _ => apply andb_True in H; destruct H
477
  (**i simplify and solve equalities *)
478
  | |- _ => progress simplify_eq/=
479
  (**i solve the goal *)
480 481 482 483 484 485
  | |- _ =>
    solve
    [ eassumption
    | symmetry; eassumption
    | apply not_symmetry; eassumption
    | reflexivity ]
486 487
  (**i operations that generate more subgoals *)
  | |- _  _ => split
488 489
  | |- Is_true (bool_decide _) => apply (bool_decide_pack _)
  | |- Is_true (_ && _) => apply andb_True; split
490 491 492 493
  | H : _  _ |- _ => destruct H
  (**i solve the goal using the user supplied tactic *)
  | |- _ => solve [tac]
  end;
494 495 496
  (**i use recursion to enable backtracking on the following clauses. *)
  match goal with
  (**i instantiation of the conclusion *)
497
  | |-  x, _ => no_new_unsolved_evars ltac:(eexists; go n)
498 499 500 501 502 503
  | |- _  _ => 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. *)
504
      match goal with
505 506
      | H : _  _ |- _ =>
        is_non_dependent H;
507 508
        no_new_unsolved_evars
          ltac:(first [eapply H | efeed pose proof H]; clear H; go n')
509 510 511
      end
    end
  end
512
  in iter (fun n' => go n') (eval compute in (seq 1 6)).
513
Tactic Notation "naive_solver" := naive_solver eauto.