diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/sphinx/addendum/extended-pattern-matching.rst')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/sphinx/addendum/extended-pattern-matching.rst | 611 |
1 files changed, 611 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/sphinx/addendum/extended-pattern-matching.rst b/doc/sphinx/addendum/extended-pattern-matching.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000..64d4eddf0 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/sphinx/addendum/extended-pattern-matching.rst @@ -0,0 +1,611 @@ +.. include:: ../replaces.rst + +.. _extendedpatternmatching: + +Extended pattern-matching +========================= + +:Authors: Cristina Cornes and Hugo Herbelin + +.. TODO links to figures + +This section describes the full form of pattern-matching in |Coq| terms. + +.. |rhs| replace:: right hand side + +Patterns +-------- + +The full syntax of match is presented in Figures 1.1 and 1.2. +Identifiers in patterns are either constructor names or variables. Any +identifier that is not the constructor of an inductive or co-inductive +type is considered to be a variable. A variable name cannot occur more +than once in a given pattern. It is recommended to start variable +names by a lowercase letter. + +If a pattern has the form ``(c x)`` where ``c`` is a constructor symbol and x +is a linear vector of (distinct) variables, it is called *simple*: it +is the kind of pattern recognized by the basic version of match. On +the opposite, if it is a variable ``x`` or has the form ``(c p)`` with ``p`` not +only made of variables, the pattern is called *nested*. + +A variable pattern matches any value, and the identifier is bound to +that value. The pattern “``_``” (called “don't care” or “wildcard” symbol) +also matches any value, but does not bind anything. It may occur an +arbitrary number of times in a pattern. Alias patterns written +:n:`(@pattern as @identifier)` are also accepted. This pattern matches the +same values as ``pattern`` does and ``identifier`` is bound to the matched +value. A pattern of the form :n:`pattern | pattern` is called disjunctive. A +list of patterns separated with commas is also considered as a pattern +and is called *multiple pattern*. However multiple patterns can only +occur at the root of pattern-matching equations. Disjunctions of +*multiple pattern* are allowed though. + +Since extended ``match`` expressions are compiled into the primitive ones, +the expressiveness of the theory remains the same. Once the stage of +parsing has finished only simple patterns remain. Re-nesting of +pattern is performed at printing time. An easy way to see the result +of the expansion is to toggle off the nesting performed at printing +(use here :opt:`Set Printing Matching`), then by printing the term with :cmd:`Print` +if the term is a constant, or using the command :cmd:`Check`. + +The extended ``match`` still accepts an optional *elimination predicate* +given after the keyword ``return``. Given a pattern matching expression, +if all the right-hand-sides of ``=>`` have the same +type, then this type can be sometimes synthesized, and so we can omit +the return part. Otherwise the predicate after return has to be +provided, like for the basicmatch. + +Let us illustrate through examples the different aspects of extended +pattern matching. Consider for example the function that computes the +maximum of two natural numbers. We can write it in primitive syntax +by: + +.. coqtop:: in undo + + Fixpoint max (n m:nat) {struct m} : nat := + match n with + | O => m + | S n' => match m with + | O => S n' + | S m' => S (max n' m') + end + end. + +Multiple patterns +----------------- + +Using multiple patterns in the definition of max lets us write: + +.. coqtop:: in undo + + Fixpoint max (n m:nat) {struct m} : nat := + match n, m with + | O, _ => m + | S n', O => S n' + | S n', S m' => S (max n' m') + end. + +which will be compiled into the previous form. + +The pattern-matching compilation strategy examines patterns from left +to right. A match expression is generated **only** when there is at least +one constructor in the column of patterns. E.g. the following example +does not build a match expression. + +.. coqtop:: all + + Check (fun x:nat => match x return nat with + | y => y + end). + + +Aliasing subpatterns +-------------------- + +We can also use :n:`as @ident` to associate a name to a sub-pattern: + +.. coqtop:: in undo + + Fixpoint max (n m:nat) {struct n} : nat := + match n, m with + | O, _ => m + | S n' as p, O => p + | S n', S m' => S (max n' m') + end. + +Nested patterns +--------------- + +Here is now an example of nested patterns: + +.. coqtop:: in + + Fixpoint even (n:nat) : bool := + match n with + | O => true + | S O => false + | S (S n') => even n' + end. + +This is compiled into: + +.. coqtop:: all undo + + Unset Printing Matching. + Print even. + +In the previous examples patterns do not conflict with, but sometimes +it is comfortable to write patterns that admit a non trivial +superposition. Consider the boolean function :g:`lef` that given two +natural numbers yields :g:`true` if the first one is less or equal than the +second one and :g:`false` otherwise. We can write it as follows: + +.. coqtop:: in undo + + Fixpoint lef (n m:nat) {struct m} : bool := + match n, m with + | O, x => true + | x, O => false + | S n, S m => lef n m + end. + +Note that the first and the second multiple pattern superpose because +the couple of values ``O O`` matches both. Thus, what is the result of the +function on those values? To eliminate ambiguity we use the *textual +priority rule*: we consider patterns ordered from top to bottom, then +a value is matched by the pattern at the ith row if and only if it is +not matched by some pattern of a previous row. Thus in the example,O O +is matched by the first pattern, and so :g:`(lef O O)` yields true. + +Another way to write this function is: + +.. coqtop:: in + + Fixpoint lef (n m:nat) {struct m} : bool := + match n, m with + | O, x => true + | S n, S m => lef n m + | _, _ => false + end. + +Here the last pattern superposes with the first two. Because of the +priority rule, the last pattern will be used only for values that do +not match neither the first nor the second one. + +Terms with useless patterns are not accepted by the system. Here is an +example: + +.. coqtop:: all + + Fail Check (fun x:nat => + match x with + | O => true + | S _ => false + | x => true + end). + + +Disjunctive patterns +-------------------- + +Multiple patterns that share the same right-hand-side can be +factorized using the notation :n:`{+| @mult_pattern}`. For +instance, :g:`max` can be rewritten as follows: + +.. coqtop:: in undo + + Fixpoint max (n m:nat) {struct m} : nat := + match n, m with + | S n', S m' => S (max n' m') + | 0, p | p, 0 => p + end. + +Similarly, factorization of (non necessary multiple) patterns that +share the same variables is possible by using the notation :n:`{+| @pattern}`. +Here is an example: + +.. coqtop:: in + + Definition filter_2_4 (n:nat) : nat := + match n with + | 2 as m | 4 as m => m + | _ => 0 + end. + + +Here is another example using disjunctive subpatterns. + +.. coqtop:: in + + Definition filter_some_square_corners (p:nat*nat) : nat*nat := + match p with + | ((2 as m | 4 as m), (3 as n | 5 as n)) => (m,n) + | _ => (0,0) + end. + +About patterns of parametric types +---------------------------------- + +Parameters in patterns +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +When matching objects of a parametric type, parameters do not bind in +patterns. They must be substituted by “``_``”. Consider for example the +type of polymorphic lists: + +.. coqtop:: in + + Inductive List (A:Set) : Set := + | nil : List A + | cons : A -> List A -> List A. + +We can check the function *tail*: + +.. coqtop:: all + + Check + (fun l:List nat => + match l with + | nil _ => nil nat + | cons _ _ l' => l' + end). + +When we use parameters in patterns there is an error message: + +.. coqtop:: all + + Fail Check + (fun l:List nat => + match l with + | nil A => nil nat + | cons A _ l' => l' + end). + +.. opt:: Asymmetric Patterns + +This option (off by default) removes parameters from constructors in patterns: + +.. coqtop:: all + + Set Asymmetric Patterns. + Check (fun l:List nat => + match l with + | nil => nil + | cons _ l' => l' + end) + Unset Asymmetric Patterns. + +Implicit arguments in patterns +------------------------------ + +By default, implicit arguments are omitted in patterns. So we write: + +.. coqtop:: all + + Arguments nil [A]. + Arguments cons [A] _ _. + Check + (fun l:List nat => + match l with + | nil => nil + | cons _ l' => l' + end). + +But the possibility to use all the arguments is given by “``@``” implicit +explicitations (as for terms 2.7.11). + +.. coqtop:: all + + Check + (fun l:List nat => + match l with + | @nil _ => @nil nat + | @cons _ _ l' => l' + end). + + +Matching objects of dependent types +----------------------------------- + +The previous examples illustrate pattern matching on objects of non- +dependent types, but we can also use the expansion strategy to +destructure objects of dependent type. Consider the type :g:`listn` of +lists of a certain length: + +.. coqtop:: in reset + + Inductive listn : nat -> Set := + | niln : listn 0 + | consn : forall n:nat, nat -> listn n -> listn (S n). + + +Understanding dependencies in patterns +-------------------------------------- + +We can define the function length over :g:`listn` by: + +.. coqtop:: in + + Definition length (n:nat) (l:listn n) := n. + +Just for illustrating pattern matching, we can define it by case +analysis: + +.. coqtop:: in + + Definition length (n:nat) (l:listn n) := + match l with + | niln => 0 + | consn n _ _ => S n + end. + +We can understand the meaning of this definition using the same +notions of usual pattern matching. + + +When the elimination predicate must be provided +----------------------------------------------- + +Dependent pattern matching +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +The examples given so far do not need an explicit elimination +predicate because all the |rhs| have the same type and the strategy +succeeds to synthesize it. Unfortunately when dealing with dependent +patterns it often happens that we need to write cases where the type +of the |rhs| are different instances of the elimination predicate. The +function concat for listn is an example where the branches have +different type and we need to provide the elimination predicate: + +.. coqtop:: in + + Fixpoint concat (n:nat) (l:listn n) (m:nat) (l':listn m) {struct l} : + listn (n + m) := + match l in listn n return listn (n + m) with + | niln => l' + | consn n' a y => consn (n' + m) a (concat n' y m l') + end. + +The elimination predicate is :g:`fun (n:nat) (l:listn n) => listn (n+m)`. +In general if :g:`m` has type :g:`(I q1 … qr t1 … ts)` where :g:`q1, …, qr` +are parameters, the elimination predicate should be of the form :g:`fun y1 … ys x : (I q1 … qr y1 … ys ) => Q`. + +In the concrete syntax, it should be written : +``match m as x in (I _ … _ y1 … ys) return Q with … end`` +The variables which appear in the ``in`` and ``as`` clause are new and bounded +in the property :g:`Q` in the return clause. The parameters of the +inductive definitions should not be mentioned and are replaced by ``_``. + +Multiple dependent pattern matching +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Recall that a list of patterns is also a pattern. So, when we +destructure several terms at the same time and the branches have +different types we need to provide the elimination predicate for this +multiple pattern. It is done using the same scheme, each term may be +associated to an as and in clause in order to introduce a dependent +product. + +For example, an equivalent definition for :g:`concat` (even though the +matching on the second term is trivial) would have been: + +.. coqtop:: in + + Fixpoint concat (n:nat) (l:listn n) (m:nat) (l':listn m) {struct l} : + listn (n + m) := + match l in listn n, l' return listn (n + m) with + | niln, x => x + | consn n' a y, x => consn (n' + m) a (concat n' y m x) + end. + +Even without real matching over the second term, this construction can +be used to keep types linked. If :g:`a` and :g:`b` are two :g:`listn` of the same +length, by writing + +.. coqtop:: in + + Fixpoint concat (n:nat) (l:listn n) (m:nat) (l':listn m) {struct l} : + listn (n + m) := + match l in listn n, l' return listn (n + m) with + | niln, x => x + | consn n' a y, x => consn (n' + m) a (concat n' y m x) + end. + +I have a copy of :g:`b` in type :g:`listn 0` resp :g:`listn (S n')`. + + +Patterns in ``in`` +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +If the type of the matched term is more precise than an inductive +applied to variables, arguments of the inductive in the ``in`` branch can +be more complicated patterns than a variable. + +Moreover, constructors whose type do not follow the same pattern will +become impossible branches. In an impossible branch, you can answer +anything but False_rect unit has the advantage to be subterm of +anything. + +To be concrete: the tail function can be written: + +.. coqtop:: in + + Definition tail n (v: listn (S n)) := + match v in listn (S m) return listn m with + | niln => False_rect unit + | consn n' a y => y + end. + +and :g:`tail n v` will be subterm of :g:`v`. + +Using pattern matching to write proofs +-------------------------------------- + +In all the previous examples the elimination predicate does not depend +on the object(s) matched. But it may depend and the typical case is +when we write a proof by induction or a function that yields an object +of dependent type. An example of proof using match in given in Section +8.2.3. + +For example, we can write the function :g:`buildlist` that given a natural +number :g:`n` builds a list of length :g:`n` containing zeros as follows: + +.. coqtop:: in + + Fixpoint buildlist (n:nat) : listn n := + match n return listn n with + | O => niln + | S n => consn n 0 (buildlist n) + end. + +We can also use multiple patterns. Consider the following definition +of the predicate less-equal :g:`Le`: + +.. coqtop:: in + + Inductive LE : nat -> nat -> Prop := + | LEO : forall n:nat, LE 0 n + | LES : forall n m:nat, LE n m -> LE (S n) (S m). + +We can use multiple patterns to write the proof of the lemma +:g:`forall (n m:nat), (LE n m) \/ (LE m n)`: + +.. coqtop:: in + + Fixpoint dec (n m:nat) {struct n} : LE n m \/ LE m n := + match n, m return LE n m \/ LE m n with + | O, x => or_introl (LE x 0) (LEO x) + | x, O => or_intror (LE x 0) (LEO x) + | S n as n', S m as m' => + match dec n m with + | or_introl h => or_introl (LE m' n') (LES n m h) + | or_intror h => or_intror (LE n' m') (LES m n h) + end + end. + +In the example of :g:`dec`, the first match is dependent while the second +is not. + +The user can also use match in combination with the tactic :tacn:`refine` (see +Section 8.2.3) to build incomplete proofs beginning with a match +construction. + + +Pattern-matching on inductive objects involving local definitions +----------------------------------------------------------------- + +If local definitions occur in the type of a constructor, then there +are two ways to match on this constructor. Either the local +definitions are skipped and matching is done only on the true +arguments of the constructors, or the bindings for local definitions +can also be caught in the matching. + +.. example:: + + .. coqtop:: in + + Inductive list : nat -> Set := + | nil : list 0 + | cons : forall n:nat, let m := (2 * n) in list m -> list (S (S m)). + + In the next example, the local definition is not caught. + + .. coqtop:: in + + Fixpoint length n (l:list n) {struct l} : nat := + match l with + | nil => 0 + | cons n l0 => S (length (2 * n) l0) + end. + + But in this example, it is. + + .. coqtop:: in + + Fixpoint length' n (l:list n) {struct l} : nat := + match l with + | nil => 0 + | @cons _ m l0 => S (length' m l0) + end. + +.. note:: For a given matching clause, either none of the local + definitions or all of them can be caught. + +.. note:: You can only catch let bindings in mode where you bind all + variables and so you have to use ``@`` syntax. + +.. note:: this feature is incoherent with the fact that parameters + cannot be caught and consequently is somehow hidden. For example, + there is no mention of it in error messages. + +Pattern-matching and coercions +------------------------------ + +If a mismatch occurs between the expected type of a pattern and its +actual type, a coercion made from constructors is sought. If such a +coercion can be found, it is automatically inserted around the +pattern. + +.. example:: + + .. coqtop:: in + + Inductive I : Set := + | C1 : nat -> I + | C2 : I -> I. + + Coercion C1 : nat >-> I. + + .. coqtop:: all + + Check (fun x => match x with + | C2 O => 0 + | _ => 0 + end). + + +When does the expansion strategy fail? +-------------------------------------- + +The strategy works very like in ML languages when treating patterns of +non-dependent type. But there are new cases of failure that are due to +the presence of dependencies. + +The error messages of the current implementation may be sometimes +confusing. When the tactic fails because patterns are somehow +incorrect then error messages refer to the initial expression. But the +strategy may succeed to build an expression whose sub-expressions are +well typed when the whole expression is not. In this situation the +message makes reference to the expanded expression. We encourage +users, when they have patterns with the same outer constructor in +different equations, to name the variable patterns in the same +positions with the same name. E.g. to write ``(cons n O x) => e1`` and +``(cons n _ x) => e2`` instead of ``(cons n O x) => e1`` and +``(cons n' _ x') => e2``. This helps to maintain certain name correspondence between the +generated expression and the original. + +Here is a summary of the error messages corresponding to each +situation: + +.. exn:: The constructor @ident expects @num arguments + + The variable ident is bound several times in pattern termFound a constructor + of inductive type term while a constructor of term is expectedPatterns are + incorrect (because constructors are not applied to the correct number of the + arguments, because they are not linear or they are wrongly typed). + +.. exn:: Non exhaustive pattern-matching + + The pattern matching is not exhaustive. + +.. exn:: The elimination predicate term should be of arity @num (for non \ + dependent case) or @num (for dependent case) + + The elimination predicate provided to match has not the expected arity. + +.. exn:: Unable to infer a match predicate + Either there is a type incompatibility or the problem involves dependencies + + There is a type mismatch between the different branches. The user should + provide an elimination predicate. |