From 3e96002677226c0cdaa8f355938a76cfb37a722a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Stephane Glondu <steph@glondu.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:51:11 +0200
Subject: Imported Upstream version 8.3

---
 doc/refman/Cases.tex | 750 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 750 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 doc/refman/Cases.tex

(limited to 'doc/refman/Cases.tex')

diff --git a/doc/refman/Cases.tex b/doc/refman/Cases.tex
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..6f58269f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/refman/Cases.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,750 @@
+\achapter{Extended pattern-matching}
+%BEGIN LATEX
+\defaultheaders
+%END LATEX
+\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:
+\label{listn}
+
+\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
+  $y_s$) => Q}.
+
+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.
+  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: 
-- 
cgit v1.2.3