| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
maybe ca71714).
Goal 2=2+2.
match goal with |- (_ = ?c) => simpl c end.
was working in 8.4 but was failing in 8.5beta2.
Note: Changes in tacintern.ml are otherwise purely cosmetic.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
there is no focused goal.
The 'g' is for "global". The arguments are the same as [fail]. Beware: [let x := constr:… in tac] is a goal-local operation regardless of whether [tac] is goal-local or not.
|
| |
|
|
| |
[tryif t then t2 else t3] behaves like [t;t2] if [t] has at least one success, or [t3] otherwise. It generalises [t||t3] as failures from [t2] will not be caught.
|
| |
|
|
| |
You can write 'simpl -[plus minus] div2'. Simpl does not use it for now.
|
| |
|
|
| |
at least when f is an evaluable reference.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
semantics described in the reference manual (i.e. if "f" is a qualid,
do not add implicit arguments and, a fortiori, do not try to solve
these implicit arguments - in particular, changing DbLib which
expected this rule not to be followed).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
reference" and "simpl pattern" in the code (maybe we should have
merged them instead, but I finally decided to enforce their
difference, even if some compatibility is to be preversed - the idea
is that at some time "simpl reference" would only call a weak-head
simpl (or eventually cbn), leading e.g. to reduce 2+n into S(1+n)
rather than S(S(n)) which could be useful for better using induction
hypotheses.
In the process we also implement the following:
- 'simpl "+"' is accepted to reduce all applicative subterms whose
head symbol is written "+" (in the toplevel scope); idem for
vm_compute and native_compute
- 'simpl reference' works even if reference has maximally inserted
implicit arguments (this solves the "simpl fst" incompatibility)
- compatibility of ltac expressions referring to vm_compute and
native_compute with functor application should now work (i.e.
vm_compute and native_compute are now taken into account in
tacsubst.ml)
- for compatibility, "simpl eq" (assuming no maximal implicit args in
eq) or "simpl @eq" to mean "simpl (eq _ _)" are still allowed.
By the way, is "mul" on nat defined optimally? "3*n" simplifies to
"n+(n+(n+0))". Are there some advantages of this compared to have it
simplified to "n+n+n" (i.e. to "(n+n)+n").
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
intropattern or a bound ltac variable).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The main change is that selection of subterm is made similar whether
the given term is fully applied or not.
- The selection of subterm now works as follows depending on whether
the "at" is given, of whether the subterm is fully applied or not,
and whether there are incompatible subterms matching the pattern. In
particular, we have:
"at" given
| subterm fully applied
| | incompatible subterms
| | |
Y Y - it works like in 8.4
Y N - this was broken in 8.4 ("at" was ineffective and it was finding
all subterms syntactically equal to the first one which matches)
N Y Y it now finds all subterms like the first one which matches
while in 8.4 it used to fail (I hope it is not a too risky in-draft
for a semantics we would regret...) (e.g. "destruct (S _)" on
goal "S x = S y + S x" now selects the two occurrences of "S x"
while it was failing before)
N Y N it works like in 8.4
N N - it works like in 8.4, selecting all subterms like the
first one which matches
- Note that the "historical" semantics, when looking for a subterm, to
select all subterms that syntactically match the first subterm to
match the pattern (looking from left to right) is now internally called
"like first".
- Selection of subterms can now find the type by pattern-matching (useful e.g.
for "induction (nat_rect _ _ _ _)")
- A version of Unification.w_unify w/o any conversion is used for
finding the subterm: it could be easily replaced by an other
matching algorithm.
In particular, "destruct H" now works on a goal such as "H:True -> x<=y |- P y".
Secondary change is in the interpretation of terms with existential
variables:
- When several arguments are given, interpretation is delayed at the
time of execution
- Because we aim at eventually accepting "edestruct c" with unresolved
holes in c, we need the sigma obtained from c to be an extension of
the sigma of the tactics, while before, we just type-checked c
independently of the sigma of the tactic
- Finishing the resolution of evars (using type classes, candidates,
pending conversion problems) is made slightly cleaner: it now takes
three states: a term is evaluated in state sigma, leading to state
sigma' >= sigma, with evars finally solved in state sigma'' >=
sigma'; we solve evars in the diff of sigma' and sigma and report
the solution in sigma''
- We however renounce to give now a success semantics to "edestruct c"
when "c" has unresolved holes, waiting instead for a decision on
what to do in the case of a similar eapply (see mail to coqdev).
An auxiliary change is that an "in" clause can be attached to each component
of a "destruct t, u, v", etc.
Incidentally, make_abstraction does not do evar resolution itself any longer.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
being able to export hints without tactics, vm, etc. to come with.
Some functions moved to the new proof engine.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
(the action is "clear").
Added subst_intropattern which was missing since the introduction of
ApplyOn intro patterns.
Still to do: make "intros _ ?id" working without interferences when
"id" is precisely the internal name used for hypotheses to discard.
|
| |
|
|
| |
as a disjunctive intropattern.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Left a README, just in case someone will discover the remnants of it
decades from now.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
ML tactics that may be used as simple identifiers are now declared as
a true Ltac entry pertaining to the module that contains the Declare ML
Module statement.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
"pat/term" for "apply term on current_hyp as pat".
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
- emphasizing the different kinds of patterns
- factorizing code of the non-naming intro-patterns
Still some questions:
- Should -> and <- apply to hypotheses or not (currently they apply to
hypotheses either when used in assert-style tactics or apply in, or
when the term to rewrite is a variable, in which case "subst" is
applied)?
- Should "subst" be used when the -> or <- rewrites an equation x=t
posed by "assert" (i.e. rewrite everywhere and clearing x and hyp)?
- Should -> and <- be applicable in non assert-style if the lemma has
quantifications?
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Also taking advantage of the change to rename it into TacML. Ultimately
should allow ML tactic to return values.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
all the tactics using the constructor keyword in one entry. This has the
side-effect to also remove the other variant of constructor from the AST.
I also needed to hack around the "tauto" tactic to make it work, by
calling directly the ML tactic through a TacExtend node. This may be
generalized to get rid of the intermingled dependencies between this
tactic and the infamous Ltac quotation mechanism.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
to Ltac's value."
It was commit 52247f50fa9aed83cc4a9a714b6b8f779479fd9b.
The closure in uconstr renders these changes (pertaining to substitution of ltac variables during internalisation) obsolete.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
hypothesis when using it in apply or rewrite (prefix ">",
undocumented), and a modifier to explicitly keep it in induction or
destruct (prefix "!", reminiscent of non-linerarity).
Also added undocumented option "Set Default Clearing Used Hypotheses"
which makes apply and rewrite default to erasing the hypothesis they
use (if ever their argument is indeed an hypothesis of the context).
|
| |
|
|
| |
subgoals and the role of the "by tac" clause swapped.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Differs from the usual t;[t1…tn] in two ways:
* It can be used without a preceding tactic
* It counts every focused subgoal, rather than considering independently the goals generated by the application of the preceding tactic on individual goals.
In other words t;[t1…tn] is [> t;[>t1…tn].. ].
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
It is meant to avoid intermediary retyping when a term is built in Ltac. See #3218.
The implementation makes a small modification in Constrintern: now the main internalisation function can take an extra substitution from Ltac variables to glob_constr and will apply the substitution during the internalisation.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
They used to be the same (and had a single entry in the AST). But now that t2 can be a multi-goal tactic, t1;[t2..] has the semantics of executing t2 in each goal independently.
|
| |
|
|
| |
backtracks, print time spent in each of successive calls.
|
| |
|
|
| |
This reverts commit abad0a15ac44cb5b53b87382bb4d587d9800a0f6.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
variant of it, accepting an additional integer.
|
| | |
|
Hugo Herbelin
Pierre-Marie Pédrot
Maxime Dénès
Arnaud Spiwack