diff options
| author | Hugo Herbelin | 2014-11-16 12:52:13 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Hugo Herbelin | 2014-11-16 15:22:36 +0100 |
| commit | 364decf59c14ec8a672d3c4d46fa1939ea0e52d3 (patch) | |
| tree | fd774da7b8f5b98f7e8fe47a2065881e6bc85aee /parsing | |
| parent | 4c576db3ed40328caa37144eb228365f497293e5 (diff) | |
Enforcing a stronger difference between the two syntaxes "simpl
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").
Diffstat (limited to 'parsing')
| -rw-r--r-- | parsing/g_tactic.ml4 | 18 |
1 files changed, 12 insertions, 6 deletions
diff --git a/parsing/g_tactic.ml4 b/parsing/g_tactic.ml4 index 3b01e988af..324efe53e9 100644 --- a/parsing/g_tactic.ml4 +++ b/parsing/g_tactic.ml4 @@ -254,6 +254,12 @@ GEXTEND Gram pattern_occ: [ [ c = constr; nl = occs -> (nl,c) ] ] ; + ref_or_pattern_occ: + (* If a string, it is interpreted as a ref + (anyway a Coq string does not reduce) *) + [ [ c = smart_global; nl = occs -> nl,Inl c + | c = constr; nl = occs -> nl,Inr c ] ] + ; unfold_occ: [ [ c = smart_global; nl = occs -> (nl,c) ] ] ; @@ -336,13 +342,13 @@ GEXTEND Gram red_tactic: [ [ IDENT "red" -> Red false | IDENT "hnf" -> Hnf - | IDENT "simpl"; po = OPT pattern_occ -> Simpl po + | IDENT "simpl"; po = OPT ref_or_pattern_occ -> Simpl po | IDENT "cbv"; s = strategy_flag -> Cbv s | IDENT "cbn"; s = strategy_flag -> Cbn s | IDENT "lazy"; s = strategy_flag -> Lazy s | IDENT "compute"; delta = delta_flag -> Cbv (all_with delta) - | IDENT "vm_compute"; po = OPT pattern_occ -> CbvVm po - | IDENT "native_compute"; po = OPT pattern_occ -> CbvNative po + | IDENT "vm_compute"; po = OPT ref_or_pattern_occ -> CbvVm po + | IDENT "native_compute"; po = OPT ref_or_pattern_occ -> CbvNative po | IDENT "unfold"; ul = LIST1 unfold_occ SEP "," -> Unfold ul | IDENT "fold"; cl = LIST1 constr -> Fold cl | IDENT "pattern"; pl = LIST1 pattern_occ SEP"," -> Pattern pl ] ] @@ -351,13 +357,13 @@ GEXTEND Gram red_expr: [ [ IDENT "red" -> Red false | IDENT "hnf" -> Hnf - | IDENT "simpl"; po = OPT pattern_occ -> Simpl po + | IDENT "simpl"; po = OPT ref_or_pattern_occ -> Simpl po | IDENT "cbv"; s = strategy_flag -> Cbv s | IDENT "cbn"; s = strategy_flag -> Cbn s | IDENT "lazy"; s = strategy_flag -> Lazy s | IDENT "compute"; delta = delta_flag -> Cbv (all_with delta) - | IDENT "vm_compute"; po = OPT pattern_occ -> CbvVm po - | IDENT "native_compute"; po = OPT pattern_occ -> CbvNative po + | IDENT "vm_compute"; po = OPT ref_or_pattern_occ -> CbvVm po + | IDENT "native_compute"; po = OPT ref_or_pattern_occ -> CbvNative po | IDENT "unfold"; ul = LIST1 unfold_occ SEP "," -> Unfold ul | IDENT "fold"; cl = LIST1 constr -> Fold cl | IDENT "pattern"; pl = LIST1 pattern_occ SEP"," -> Pattern pl |
