diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/refman/Cases.tex')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/refman/Cases.tex | 747 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 747 deletions
diff --git a/doc/refman/Cases.tex b/doc/refman/Cases.tex deleted file mode 100644 index dfe9e94c..00000000 --- a/doc/refman/Cases.tex +++ /dev/null @@ -1,747 +0,0 @@ -\achapter{Extended pattern-matching}\defaultheaders -\aauthor{Cristina Cornes and Hugo Herbelin} - -\label{Mult-match-full} -\ttindex{Cases} -\index{ML-like patterns} - -This section describes the full form of pattern-matching in {\Coq} terms. - -\asection{Patterns}\label{implementation} The full syntax of {\tt -match} is presented in figures~\ref{term-syntax} -and~\ref{term-syntax-aux}. Identifiers in patterns are either -constructor names or variables. Any identifier that is not the -constructor of an inductive or coinductive 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 $(c~\vec{x})$ where $c$ is a constructor -symbol and $\vec{x}$ is a linear vector of (distinct) variables, it is -called {\em simple}: it is the kind of pattern recognized by the basic -version of {\tt match}. On the opposite, if it is a variable $x$ or -has the form $(c~\vec{p})$ with $p$ not only made of variables, the -pattern is called {\em nested}. - -A variable pattern matches any value, and the identifier is bound to -that value. The pattern ``\texttt{\_}'' (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 \texttt{(}{\sl pattern} \texttt{as} -{\sl identifier}\texttt{)} are also accepted. This pattern matches the -same values as {\sl pattern} does and {\sl identifier} is bound to the -matched value. -A pattern of the form {\pattern}{\tt |}{\pattern} is called -disjunctive. A list of patterns separated with commas is also -considered as a pattern and is called {\em multiple pattern}. However -multiple patterns can only occur at the root of pattern-matching -equations. Disjunctions of {\em multiple pattern} are allowed though. - -Since extended {\tt 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 {\tt Set Printing Matching}), then by printing the term -with \texttt{Print} if the term is a constant, or using the command -\texttt{Check}. - -The extended \texttt{match} still accepts an optional {\em elimination -predicate} given after the keyword \texttt{return}. Given a pattern -matching expression, if all the right-hand-sides of \texttt{=>} ({\em -rhs} in short) have the same type, then this type can be sometimes -synthesized, and so we can omit the \texttt{return} part. Otherwise -the predicate after \texttt{return} has to be provided, like for the basic -\texttt{match}. - -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: - -\begin{coq_example} -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. -\end{coq_example} - -\paragraph{Multiple patterns} - -Using multiple patterns in the definition of {\tt max} allows to write: - -\begin{coq_example} -Reset max. -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. -\end{coq_example} - -which will be compiled into the previous form. - -The pattern-matching compilation strategy examines patterns from left -to right. A \texttt{match} expression is generated {\bf only} when -there is at least one constructor in the column of patterns. E.g. the -following example does not build a \texttt{match} expression. - -\begin{coq_example} -Check (fun x:nat => match x return nat with - | y => y - end). -\end{coq_example} - -\paragraph{Aliasing subpatterns} - -We can also use ``\texttt{as} {\ident}'' to associate a name to a -sub-pattern: - -\begin{coq_example} -Reset max. -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. -\end{coq_example} - -\paragraph{Nested patterns} - -Here is now an example of nested patterns: - -\begin{coq_example} -Fixpoint even (n:nat) : bool := - match n with - | O => true - | S O => false - | S (S n') => even n' - end. -\end{coq_example} - -This is compiled into: - -\begin{coq_example} -Print even. -\end{coq_example} - -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 \texttt{lef} that given two natural numbers -yields \texttt{true} if the first one is less or equal than the second -one and \texttt{false} otherwise. We can write it as follows: - -\begin{coq_example} -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. -\end{coq_example} - -Note that the first and the second multiple pattern superpose because -the couple of values \texttt{O O} matches both. Thus, what is the result -of the function on those values? To eliminate ambiguity we use the -{\em 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, -\texttt{O O} is matched by the first pattern, and so \texttt{(lef O O)} -yields \texttt{true}. - -Another way to write this function is: - -\begin{coq_example} -Reset lef. -Fixpoint lef (n m:nat) {struct m} : bool := - match n, m with - | O, x => true - | S n, S m => lef n m - | _, _ => false - end. -\end{coq_example} - -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: -% Test failure -\begin{coq_eval} -Set Printing Depth 50. - (********** The following is not correct and should produce **********) - (**************** Error: This clause is redundant ********************) -\end{coq_eval} -\begin{coq_example} -Check (fun x:nat => - match x with - | O => true - | S _ => false - | x => true - end). -\end{coq_example} - -\paragraph{Disjunctive patterns} - -Multiple patterns that share the same right-hand-side can be -factorized using the notation \nelist{\multpattern}{\tt |}. For instance, -{\tt max} can be rewritten as follows: - -\begin{coq_eval} -Reset max. -\end{coq_eval} -\begin{coq_example} -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. -\end{coq_example} - -Similarly, factorization of (non necessary multiple) patterns -that share the same variables is possible by using the notation -\nelist{\pattern}{\tt |}. Here is an example: - -\begin{coq_example} -Definition filter_2_4 (n:nat) : nat := - match n with - | 2 as m | 4 as m => m - | _ => 0 - end. -\end{coq_example} - -Here is another example using disjunctive subpatterns. - -\begin{coq_example} -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. -\end{coq_example} - -\asection{About patterns of parametric types} -When matching objects of a parametric type, constructors in patterns -{\em do not expect} the parameter arguments. Their value is deduced -during expansion. -Consider for example the type of polymorphic lists: - -\begin{coq_example} -Inductive List (A:Set) : Set := - | nil : List A - | cons : A -> List A -> List A. -\end{coq_example} - -We can check the function {\em tail}: - -\begin{coq_example} -Check - (fun l:List nat => - match l with - | nil => nil nat - | cons _ l' => l' - end). -\end{coq_example} - - -When we use parameters in patterns there is an error message: -% Test failure -\begin{coq_eval} -Set Printing Depth 50. -(********** The following is not correct and should produce **********) -(******** Error: The constructor cons expects 2 arguments ************) -\end{coq_eval} -\begin{coq_example} -Check - (fun l:List nat => - match l with - | nil A => nil nat - | cons A _ l' => l' - end). -\end{coq_example} - - - -\asection{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 \texttt{listn} of lists of a certain length: - -\begin{coq_example} -Inductive listn : nat -> Set := - | niln : listn 0 - | consn : forall n:nat, nat -> listn n -> listn (S n). -\end{coq_example} - -\asubsection{Understanding dependencies in patterns} -We can define the function \texttt{length} over \texttt{listn} by: - -\begin{coq_example} -Definition length (n:nat) (l:listn n) := n. -\end{coq_example} - -Just for illustrating pattern matching, -we can define it by case analysis: - -\begin{coq_example} -Reset length. -Definition length (n:nat) (l:listn n) := - match l with - | niln => 0 - | consn n _ _ => S n - end. -\end{coq_example} - -We can understand the meaning of this definition using the -same notions of usual pattern matching. - -% -% Constraining of dependencies is not longer valid in V7 -% -\iffalse -Now suppose we split the second pattern of \texttt{length} into two -cases so to give an -alternative definition using nested patterns: -\begin{coq_example} -Definition length1 (n:nat) (l:listn n) := - match l with - | niln => 0 - | consn n _ niln => S n - | consn n _ (consn _ _ _) => S n - end. -\end{coq_example} - -It is obvious that \texttt{length1} is another version of -\texttt{length}. We can also give the following definition: -\begin{coq_example} -Definition length2 (n:nat) (l:listn n) := - match l with - | niln => 0 - | consn n _ niln => 1 - | consn n _ (consn m _ _) => S (S m) - end. -\end{coq_example} - -If we forget that \texttt{listn} is a dependent type and we read these -definitions using the usual semantics of pattern matching, we can conclude -that \texttt{length1} -and \texttt{length2} are different functions. -In fact, they are equivalent -because the pattern \texttt{niln} implies that \texttt{n} can only match -the value $0$ and analogously the pattern \texttt{consn} determines that \texttt{n} can -only match values of the form $(S~v)$ where $v$ is the value matched by -\texttt{m}. - -The converse is also true. If -we destructure the length value with the pattern \texttt{O} then the list -value should be $niln$. -Thus, the following term \texttt{length3} corresponds to the function -\texttt{length} but this time defined by case analysis on the dependencies instead of on the list: - -\begin{coq_example} -Definition length3 (n:nat) (l:listn n) := - match l with - | niln => 0 - | consn O _ _ => 1 - | consn (S n) _ _ => S (S n) - end. -\end{coq_example} - -When we have nested patterns of dependent types, the semantics of -pattern matching becomes a little more difficult because -the set of values that are matched by a sub-pattern may be conditioned by the -values matched by another sub-pattern. Dependent nested patterns are -somehow constrained patterns. -In the examples, the expansion of -\texttt{length1} and \texttt{length2} yields exactly the same term - but the -expansion of \texttt{length3} is completely different. \texttt{length1} and -\texttt{length2} are expanded into two nested case analysis on -\texttt{listn} while \texttt{length3} is expanded into a case analysis on -\texttt{listn} containing a case analysis on natural numbers inside. - - -In practice the user can think about the patterns as independent and -it is the expansion algorithm that cares to relate them. \\ -\fi -% -% -% - -\asubsection{When the elimination predicate must be provided} -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 \texttt{concat} for \texttt{listn} -is an example where the branches have different type -and we need to provide the elimination predicate: - -\begin{coq_example} -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. -\end{coq_example} -The elimination predicate is {\tt fun (n:nat) (l:listn n) => listn~(n+m)}. -In general if $m$ has type $(I~q_1\ldots q_r~t_1\ldots t_s)$ where -$q_1\ldots q_r$ are parameters, the elimination predicate should be of -the form~: -{\tt fun $y_1$\ldots $y_s$ $x$:($I$~$q_1$\ldots $q_r$~$y_1$\ldots - $y_s$) => P}. - -In the concrete syntax, it should be written~: -\[ \kw{match}~m~\kw{as}~x~\kw{in}~(I~\_\ldots \_~y_1\ldots y_s)~\kw{return}~Q~\kw{with}~\ldots~\kw{end}\] - -The variables which appear in the \kw{in} and \kw{as} clause are new -and bounded in the property $Q$ in the \kw{return} clause. The -parameters of the inductive definitions should not be mentioned and -are replaced by \kw{\_}. - -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 type 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 -\kw{as} and \kw{in} clause in order to introduce a dependent product. - -For example, an equivalent definition for \texttt{concat} (even though the matching on the second term is trivial) would have -been: - -\begin{coq_example} -Reset concat. -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. -\end{coq_example} - -% Notice that this time, the predicate \texttt{[n,\_:nat](listn (plus n -% m))} is binary because we -% destructure both \texttt{l} and \texttt{l'} whose types have arity one. -% In general, if we destructure the terms $e_1\ldots e_n$ -% the predicate will be of arity $m$ where $m$ is the sum of the -% number of dependencies of the type of $e_1, e_2,\ldots e_n$ -% (the $\lambda$-abstractions -% should correspond from left to right to each dependent argument of the -% type of $e_1\ldots e_n$). -When the arity of the predicate (i.e. number of abstractions) is not -correct Coq raises an error message. For example: - -% Test failure -\begin{coq_eval} -Reset concat. -Set Printing Depth 50. -(********** The following is not correct and should produce ***********) -(** Error: the term l' has type listn m while it is expected to have **) -(** type listn (?31 + ?32) **) -\end{coq_eval} -\begin{coq_example} -Fixpoint concat - (n:nat) (l:listn n) (m:nat) - (l':listn m) {struct l} : listn (n + m) := - match l, l' with - | niln, x => x - | consn n' a y, x => consn (n' + m) a (concat n' y m x) - end. -\end{coq_example} - -\asection{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 \texttt{match} in -given in section \ref{refine-example} - -For example, we can write -the function \texttt{buildlist} that given a natural number -$n$ builds a list of length $n$ containing zeros as follows: - -\begin{coq_example} -Fixpoint buildlist (n:nat) : listn n := - match n return listn n with - | O => niln - | S n => consn n 0 (buildlist n) - end. -\end{coq_example} - -We can also use multiple patterns. -Consider the following definition of the predicate less-equal -\texttt{Le}: - -\begin{coq_example} -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). -\end{coq_example} - -We can use multiple patterns to write the proof of the lemma - \texttt{forall (n m:nat), (LE n m)}\verb=\/=\texttt{(LE m n)}: - -\begin{coq_example} -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. -\end{coq_example} -In the example of \texttt{dec}, -the first \texttt{match} is dependent while -the second is not. - -% In general, consider the terms $e_1\ldots e_n$, -% where the type of $e_i$ is an instance of a family type -% $\lb (\vec{d_i}:\vec{D_i}) \mto T_i$ ($1\leq i -% \leq n$). Then, in expression \texttt{match} $e_1,\ldots, -% e_n$ \texttt{of} \ldots \texttt{end}, the -% elimination predicate ${\cal P}$ should be of the form: -% $[\vec{d_1}:\vec{D_1}][x_1:T_1]\ldots [\vec{d_n}:\vec{D_n}][x_n:T_n]Q.$ - -The user can also use \texttt{match} in combination with the tactic -\texttt{refine} (see section \ref{refine}) to build incomplete proofs -beginning with a \texttt{match} construction. - -\asection{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. - -\begin{coq_eval} -Reset Initial. -Require Import Arith. -\end{coq_eval} - -\begin{coq_example*} -Inductive list : nat -> Set := - | nil : list 0 - | cons : forall n:nat, let m := (2 * n) in list m -> list (S (S m)). -\end{coq_example*} - -In the next example, the local definition is not caught. - -\begin{coq_example} -Fixpoint length n (l:list n) {struct l} : nat := - match l with - | nil => 0 - | cons n l0 => S (length (2 * n) l0) - end. -\end{coq_example} - -But in this example, it is. - -\begin{coq_example} -Fixpoint length' n (l:list n) {struct l} : nat := - match l with - | nil => 0 - | cons _ m l0 => S (length' m l0) - end. -\end{coq_example} - -\Rem for a given matching clause, either none of the local -definitions or all of them can be caught. - -\asection{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: - -\begin{coq_example} -Inductive I : Set := - | C1 : nat -> I - | C2 : I -> I. -Coercion C1 : nat >-> I. -Check (fun x => match x with - | C2 O => 0 - | _ => 0 - end). -\end{coq_example} - - -\asection{When does the expansion strategy fail ?}\label{limitations} -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 {\small\texttt{(cons n O x) => e1}} -and {\small\texttt{(cons n \_ x) => e2}} instead of -{\small\texttt{(cons n O x) => e1}} and -{\small\texttt{(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: - -\begin{ErrMsgs} -\item \sverb{The constructor } {\sl - ident} \sverb{expects } {\sl num} \sverb{arguments} - - \sverb{The variable } {\sl ident} \sverb{is bound several times - in pattern } {\sl term} - - \sverb{Found a constructor of inductive type} {\term} - \sverb{while a constructor of} {\term} \sverb{is expected} - - Patterns are incorrect (because constructors are not applied to - the correct number of the arguments, because they are not linear or - they are wrongly typed) - -\item \errindex{Non exhaustive pattern-matching} - -the pattern matching is not exhaustive - -\item \sverb{The elimination predicate } {\sl term} \sverb{should be - of arity } {\sl num} \sverb{(for non dependent case) or } {\sl - num} \sverb{(for dependent case)} - -The elimination predicate provided to \texttt{match} has not the - expected arity - - -%\item the whole expression is wrongly typed - -% CADUC ? -% , or the synthesis of -% implicit arguments fails (for example to find the elimination -% predicate or to resolve implicit arguments in the rhs). - -% There are {\em nested patterns of dependent type}, the elimination -% predicate corresponds to non-dependent case and has the form -% $[x_1:T_1]...[x_n:T_n]T$ and {\bf some} $x_i$ occurs {\bf free} in -% $T$. Then, the strategy may fail to find out a correct elimination -% predicate during some step of compilation. In this situation we -% recommend the user to rewrite the nested dependent patterns into -% several \texttt{match} with {\em simple patterns}. - -\item {\tt Unable to infer a match predicate\\ - Either there is a type incompatiblity or the problem involves\\ - dependencies} - - There is a type mismatch between the different branches - - Then the user should provide an elimination predicate. - -% Obsolete ? -% \item because of nested patterns, it may happen that even though all -% the rhs have the same type, the strategy needs dependent elimination -% and so an elimination predicate must be provided. The system warns -% about this situation, trying to compile anyway with the -% non-dependent strategy. The risen message is: - -% \begin{itemize} -% \item {\tt Warning: This pattern matching may need dependent -% elimination to be compiled. I will try, but if fails try again -% giving dependent elimination predicate.} -% \end{itemize} - - -%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% -% % LA PROPAGATION DES CONTRAINTES ARRIERE N'EST PAS FAITE DANS LA V7 -% TODO -% \item there are {\em nested patterns of dependent type} and the -% strategy builds a term that is well typed but recursive calls in fix -% point are reported as illegal: -% \begin{itemize} -% \item {\tt Error: Recursive call applied to an illegal term ...} -% \end{itemize} - -% This is because the strategy generates a term that is correct w.r.t. -% the initial term but which does not pass the guard condition. In -% this situation we recommend the user to transform the nested dependent -% patterns into {\em several \texttt{match} of simple patterns}. Let us -% explain this with an example. Consider the following definition of a -% function that yields the last element of a list and \texttt{O} if it is -% empty: - -% \begin{coq_example} -% Fixpoint last [n:nat; l:(listn n)] : nat := -% match l of -% (consn _ a niln) => a -% | (consn m _ x) => (last m x) | niln => O -% end. -% \end{coq_example} - -% It fails because of the priority between patterns, we know that this -% definition is equivalent to the following more explicit one (which -% fails too): - -% \begin{coq_example*} -% Fixpoint last [n:nat; l:(listn n)] : nat := -% match l of -% (consn _ a niln) => a -% | (consn n _ (consn m b x)) => (last n (consn m b x)) -% | niln => O -% end. -% \end{coq_example*} - -% Note that the recursive call {\tt (last n (consn m b x))} is not -% guarded. When treating with patterns of dependent types the strategy -% interprets the first definition of \texttt{last} as the second -% one\footnote{In languages of the ML family the first definition would -% be translated into a term where the variable \texttt{x} is shared in -% the expression. When patterns are of non-dependent types, Coq -% compiles as in ML languages using sharing. When patterns are of -% dependent types the compilation reconstructs the term as in the -% second definition of \texttt{last} so to ensure the result of -% expansion is well typed.}. Thus it generates a term where the -% recursive call is rejected by the guard condition. - -% You can get rid of this problem by writing the definition with -% \emph{simple patterns}: - -% \begin{coq_example} -% Fixpoint last [n:nat; l:(listn n)] : nat := -% <[_:nat]nat>match l of -% (consn m a x) => Cases x of niln => a | _ => (last m x) end -% | niln => O -% end. -% \end{coq_example} - -\end{ErrMsgs} - - -%%% Local Variables: -%%% mode: latex -%%% TeX-master: "Reference-Manual" -%%% End: |