diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/refman')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/refman/AddRefMan-pre.tex | 63 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/refman/RefMan-gal.tex | 1737 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/refman/RefMan-ltac.tex | 1829 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/refman/Reference-Manual.tex | 135 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/refman/biblio.bib | 1397 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/refman/coq-listing.tex | 152 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/refman/coqide-queries.png | bin | 66656 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/refman/coqide.png | bin | 59662 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/refman/headers.hva | 44 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/refman/headers.sty | 88 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/refman/index.html | 14 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/refman/menu.html | 32 |
12 files changed, 0 insertions, 5491 deletions
diff --git a/doc/refman/AddRefMan-pre.tex b/doc/refman/AddRefMan-pre.tex deleted file mode 100644 index 856a823de0..0000000000 --- a/doc/refman/AddRefMan-pre.tex +++ /dev/null @@ -1,63 +0,0 @@ -%\coverpage{Addendum to the Reference Manual}{\ } -%\addcontentsline{toc}{part}{Additional documentation} -%BEGIN LATEX -\setheaders{Presentation of the Addendum} -%END LATEX -\chapter*{Presentation of the Addendum} -%HEVEA\cutname{addendum.html} - -Here you will find several pieces of additional documentation for the -\Coq\ Reference Manual. Each of this chapters is concentrated on a -particular topic, that should interest only a fraction of the \Coq\ -users: that's the reason why they are apart from the Reference -Manual. - -\begin{description} - -\item[Extended pattern-matching] This chapter details the use of - generalized pattern-matching. It is contributed by Cristina Cornes - and Hugo Herbelin. - -\item[Implicit coercions] This chapter details the use of the coercion - mechanism. It is contributed by Amokrane Saïbi. - -%\item[Proof of imperative programs] This chapter explains how to -% prove properties of annotated programs with imperative features. -% It is contributed by Jean-Christophe Filliâtre - -\item[Program extraction] This chapter explains how to extract in practice ML - files from $\FW$ terms. It is contributed by Jean-Christophe - Filliâtre and Pierre Letouzey. - -\item[Program] This chapter explains the use of the \texttt{Program} - vernacular which allows the development of certified - programs in \Coq. It is contributed by Matthieu Sozeau and replaces - the previous \texttt{Program} tactic by Catherine Parent. - -%\item[Natural] This chapter is due to Yann Coscoy. It is the user -% manual of the tools he wrote for printing proofs in natural -% language. At this time, French and English languages are supported. - -\item[omega] \texttt{omega}, written by Pierre Crégut, solves a whole - class of arithmetic problems. - -\item[The {\tt ring} tactic] This is a tactic to do AC rewriting. This - chapter explains how to use it and how it works. - The chapter is contributed by Patrick Loiseleur. - -\item[The {\tt Setoid\_replace} tactic] This is a - tactic to do rewriting on types equipped with specific (only partially - substitutive) equality. The chapter is contributed by Clément Renard. - -\item[Calling external provers] This chapter describes several tactics - which call external provers. - -\end{description} - -\atableofcontents - - -%%% Local Variables: -%%% mode: latex -%%% TeX-master: "Reference-Manual" -%%% End: diff --git a/doc/refman/RefMan-gal.tex b/doc/refman/RefMan-gal.tex deleted file mode 100644 index 41ea0a5dcd..0000000000 --- a/doc/refman/RefMan-gal.tex +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1737 +0,0 @@ -\chapter{The \gallina{} specification language -\label{Gallina}\index{Gallina}} -%HEVEA\cutname{gallina.html} -\label{BNF-syntax} % Used referred to as a chapter label - -This chapter describes \gallina, the specification language of {\Coq}. -It allows developing mathematical theories and proofs of specifications -of programs. The theories are built from axioms, hypotheses, -parameters, lemmas, theorems and definitions of constants, functions, -predicates and sets. The syntax of logical objects involved in -theories is described in Section~\ref{term}. The language of -commands, called {\em The Vernacular} is described in section -\ref{Vernacular}. - -In {\Coq}, logical objects are typed to ensure their logical -correctness. The rules implemented by the typing algorithm are described in -Chapter \ref{Cic}. - -\subsection*{About the grammars in the manual -\index{BNF metasyntax}} - -Grammars are presented in Backus-Naur form (BNF). Terminal symbols are -set in {\tt typewriter font}. In addition, there are special -notations for regular expressions. - -An expression enclosed in square brackets \zeroone{\ldots} means at -most one occurrence of this expression (this corresponds to an -optional component). - -The notation ``\nelist{\entry}{sep}'' stands for a non empty -sequence of expressions parsed by {\entry} and -separated by the literal ``{\tt sep}''\footnote{This is similar to the -expression ``{\entry} $\{$ {\tt sep} {\entry} $\}$'' in -standard BNF, or ``{\entry}~{$($} {\tt sep} {\entry} {$)$*}'' in -the syntax of regular expressions.}. - -Similarly, the notation ``\nelist{\entry}{}'' stands for a non -empty sequence of expressions parsed by the ``{\entry}'' entry, -without any separator between. - -Finally, the notation ``\sequence{\entry}{\tt sep}'' stands for a -possibly empty sequence of expressions parsed by the ``{\entry}'' entry, -separated by the literal ``{\tt sep}''. - -\section{Lexical conventions -\label{lexical}\index{Lexical conventions}} - -\paragraph{Blanks} -Space, newline and horizontal tabulation are considered as blanks. -Blanks are ignored but they separate tokens. - -\paragraph{Comments} - -Comments in {\Coq} are enclosed between {\tt (*} and {\tt - *)}\index{Comments}, and can be nested. They can contain any -character. However, string literals must be correctly closed. Comments -are treated as blanks. - -\paragraph{Identifiers and access identifiers} - -Identifiers, written {\ident}, are sequences of letters, digits, -\verb!_! and \verb!'!, that do not start with a digit or \verb!'!. -That is, they are recognized by the following lexical class: - -\index{ident@\ident} -\begin{center} -\begin{tabular}{rcl} -{\firstletter} & ::= & {\tt a..z} $\mid$ {\tt A..Z} $\mid$ {\tt \_} -$\mid$ {\tt unicode-letter} -\\ -{\subsequentletter} & ::= & {\tt a..z} $\mid$ {\tt A..Z} $\mid$ {\tt 0..9} -$\mid$ {\tt \_} % $\mid$ {\tt \$} -$\mid$ {\tt '} -$\mid$ {\tt unicode-letter} -$\mid$ {\tt unicode-id-part} \\ -{\ident} & ::= & {\firstletter} \sequencewithoutblank{\subsequentletter}{} -\end{tabular} -\end{center} -All characters are meaningful. In particular, identifiers are -case-sensitive. The entry {\tt unicode-letter} non-exhaustively -includes Latin, Greek, Gothic, Cyrillic, Arabic, Hebrew, Georgian, -Hangul, Hiragana and Katakana characters, CJK ideographs, mathematical -letter-like symbols, hyphens, non-breaking space, {\ldots} The entry -{\tt unicode-id-part} non-exhaustively includes symbols for prime -letters and subscripts. - -Access identifiers, written {\accessident}, are identifiers prefixed -by \verb!.! (dot) without blank. They are used in the syntax of qualified -identifiers. - -\paragraph{Natural numbers and integers} -Numerals are sequences of digits. Integers are numerals optionally preceded by a minus sign. - -\index{num@{\num}} -\index{integer@{\integer}} -\begin{center} -\begin{tabular}{r@{\quad::=\quad}l} -{\digit} & {\tt 0..9} \\ -{\num} & \nelistwithoutblank{\digit}{} \\ -{\integer} & \zeroone{\tt -}{\num} \\ -\end{tabular} -\end{center} - -\paragraph[Strings]{Strings\label{strings} -\index{string@{\qstring}}} -Strings are delimited by \verb!"! (double quote), and enclose a -sequence of any characters different from \verb!"! or the sequence -\verb!""! to denote the double quote character. In grammars, the -entry for quoted strings is {\qstring}. - -\paragraph{Keywords} -The following identifiers are reserved keywords, and cannot be -employed otherwise: -\begin{center} -\begin{tabular}{llllll} -\verb!_! & -\verb!as! & -\verb!at! & -\verb!cofix! & -\verb!else! & -\verb!end! \\ -% -\verb!exists! & -\verb!exists2! & -\verb!fix! & -\verb!for! & -\verb!forall! & -\verb!fun! \\ -% -\verb!if! & -\verb!IF! & -\verb!in! & -\verb!let! & -\verb!match! & -\verb!mod! \\ -% -\verb!Prop! & -\verb!return! & -\verb!Set! & -\verb!then! & -\verb!Type! & -\verb!using! \\ -% -\verb!where! & -\verb!with! & -\end{tabular} -\end{center} - - -\paragraph{Special tokens} -The following sequences of characters are special tokens: -\begin{center} -\begin{tabular}{lllllll} -\verb/!/ & -\verb!%! & -\verb!&! & -\verb!&&! & -\verb!(! & -\verb!()! & -\verb!)! \\ -% -\verb!*! & -\verb!+! & -\verb!++! & -\verb!,! & -\verb!-! & -\verb!->! & -\verb!.! \\ -% -\verb!.(! & -\verb!..! & -\verb!/! & -\verb!/\! & -\verb!:! & -\verb!::! & -\verb!:<! \\ -% -\verb!:=! & -\verb!:>! & -\verb!;! & -\verb!<! & -\verb!<-! & -\verb!<->! & -\verb!<:! \\ -% -\verb!<=! & -\verb!<>! & -\verb!=! & -\verb!=>! & -\verb!=_D! & -\verb!>! & -\verb!>->! \\ -% -\verb!>=! & -\verb!?! & -\verb!?=! & -\verb!@! & -\verb![! & -\verb!\/! & -\verb!]! \\ -% -\verb!^! & -\verb!{! & -\verb!|! & -\verb!|-! & -\verb!||! & -\verb!}! & -\verb!~! \\ -\end{tabular} -\end{center} - -Lexical ambiguities are resolved according to the ``longest match'' -rule: when a sequence of non alphanumerical characters can be decomposed -into several different ways, then the first token is the longest -possible one (among all tokens defined at this moment), and so on. - -\section{Terms \label{term}\index{Terms}} - -\subsection{Syntax of terms} - -Figures \ref{term-syntax} and \ref{term-syntax-aux} describe the basic syntax of -the terms of the {\em Calculus of Inductive Constructions} (also -called \CIC). The formal presentation of {\CIC} is given in Chapter -\ref{Cic}. Extensions of this syntax are given in chapter -\ref{Gallina-extension}. How to customize the syntax is described in Chapter -\ref{Addoc-syntax}. - -\begin{figure}[htbp] -\begin{centerframe} -\begin{tabular}{lcl@{\quad~}r} % warning: page width exceeded with \qquad -{\term} & ::= & - {\tt forall} {\binders} {\tt ,} {\term} &(\ref{products})\\ - & $|$ & {\tt fun} {\binders} {\tt =>} {\term} &(\ref{abstractions})\\ - & $|$ & {\tt fix} {\fixpointbodies} &(\ref{fixpoints})\\ - & $|$ & {\tt cofix} {\cofixpointbodies} &(\ref{fixpoints})\\ - & $|$ & {\tt let} {\ident} \zeroone{\binders} {\typecstr} {\tt :=} {\term} - {\tt in} {\term} &(\ref{let-in})\\ - & $|$ & {\tt let fix} {\fixpointbody} {\tt in} {\term} &(\ref{fixpoints})\\ - & $|$ & {\tt let cofix} {\cofixpointbody} - {\tt in} {\term} &(\ref{fixpoints})\\ - & $|$ & {\tt let} {\tt (} \sequence{\name}{,} {\tt )} \zeroone{\ifitem} - {\tt :=} {\term} - {\tt in} {\term} &(\ref{caseanalysis}, \ref{Mult-match})\\ - & $|$ & {\tt let '} {\pattern} \zeroone{{\tt in} {\term}} {\tt :=} {\term} - \zeroone{\returntype} {\tt in} {\term} & (\ref{caseanalysis}, \ref{Mult-match})\\ - & $|$ & {\tt if} {\term} \zeroone{\ifitem} {\tt then} {\term} - {\tt else} {\term} &(\ref{caseanalysis}, \ref{Mult-match})\\ - & $|$ & {\term} {\tt :} {\term} &(\ref{typecast})\\ - & $|$ & {\term} {\tt <:} {\term} &(\ref{typecast})\\ - & $|$ & {\term} {\tt :>} &(\ref{ProgramSyntax})\\ - & $|$ & {\term} {\tt ->} {\term} &(\ref{products})\\ - & $|$ & {\term} \nelist{\termarg}{}&(\ref{applications})\\ - & $|$ & {\tt @} {\qualid} \sequence{\term}{} - &(\ref{Implicits-explicitation})\\ - & $|$ & {\term} {\tt \%} {\ident} &(\ref{scopechange})\\ - & $|$ & {\tt match} \nelist{\caseitem}{\tt ,} - \zeroone{\returntype} {\tt with} &\\ - && ~~~\zeroone{\zeroone{\tt |} \nelist{\eqn}{|}} {\tt end} - &(\ref{caseanalysis})\\ - & $|$ & {\qualid} &(\ref{qualid})\\ - & $|$ & {\sort} &(\ref{Gallina-sorts})\\ - & $|$ & {\num} &(\ref{numerals})\\ - & $|$ & {\_} &(\ref{hole})\\ - & $|$ & {\tt (} {\term} {\tt )} & \\ - & & &\\ -{\termarg} & ::= & {\term} &\\ - & $|$ & {\tt (} {\ident} {\tt :=} {\term} {\tt )} - &(\ref{Implicits-explicitation})\\ -%% & $|$ & {\tt (} {\num} {\tt :=} {\term} {\tt )} -%% &(\ref{Implicits-explicitation})\\ -&&&\\ -{\binders} & ::= & \nelist{\binder}{} \\ -&&&\\ -{\binder} & ::= & {\name} & (\ref{Binders}) \\ - & $|$ & {\tt (} \nelist{\name}{} {\tt :} {\term} {\tt )} &\\ - & $|$ & {\tt (} {\name} {\typecstr} {\tt :=} {\term} {\tt )} &\\ - & $|$ & {\tt '} {\pattern} &\\ -& & &\\ -{\name} & ::= & {\ident} &\\ - & $|$ & {\tt \_} &\\ -&&&\\ -{\qualid} & ::= & {\ident} & \\ - & $|$ & {\qualid} {\accessident} &\\ - & & &\\ -{\sort} & ::= & {\tt Prop} ~$|$~ {\tt Set} ~$|$~ {\tt Type} & -\end{tabular} -\end{centerframe} -\caption{Syntax of terms} -\label{term-syntax} -\index{term@{\term}} -\index{sort@{\sort}} -\end{figure} - - - -\begin{figure}[htb] -\begin{centerframe} -\begin{tabular}{lcl} -{\fixpointbodies} & ::= & - {\fixpointbody} \\ - & $|$ & {\fixpointbody} {\tt with} \nelist{\fixpointbody}{{\tt with}} - {\tt for} {\ident} \\ -{\cofixpointbodies} & ::= & - {\cofixpointbody} \\ - & $|$ & {\cofixpointbody} {\tt with} \nelist{\cofixpointbody}{{\tt with}} - {\tt for} {\ident} \\ -&&\\ -{\fixpointbody} & ::= & - {\ident} {\binders} \zeroone{\annotation} {\typecstr} - {\tt :=} {\term} \\ -{\cofixpointbody} & ::= & {\ident} \zeroone{\binders} {\typecstr} {\tt :=} {\term} \\ - & &\\ -{\annotation} & ::= & {\tt \{ struct} {\ident} {\tt \}} \\ -&&\\ -{\caseitem} & ::= & {\term} \zeroone{{\tt as} \name} - \zeroone{{\tt in} \qualid \sequence{\pattern}{}} \\ -&&\\ -{\ifitem} & ::= & \zeroone{{\tt as} {\name}} {\returntype} \\ -&&\\ -{\returntype} & ::= & {\tt return} {\term} \\ -&&\\ -{\eqn} & ::= & \nelist{\multpattern}{\tt |} {\tt =>} {\term}\\ -&&\\ -{\multpattern} & ::= & \nelist{\pattern}{\tt ,}\\ -&&\\ -{\pattern} & ::= & {\qualid} \nelist{\pattern}{} \\ - & $|$ & {\tt @} {\qualid} \nelist{\pattern}{} \\ - - & $|$ & {\pattern} {\tt as} {\ident} \\ - & $|$ & {\pattern} {\tt \%} {\ident} \\ - & $|$ & {\qualid} \\ - & $|$ & {\tt \_} \\ - & $|$ & {\num} \\ - & $|$ & {\tt (} \nelist{\orpattern}{,} {\tt )} \\ -\\ -{\orpattern} & ::= & \nelist{\pattern}{\tt |}\\ -\end{tabular} -\end{centerframe} -\caption{Syntax of terms (continued)} -\label{term-syntax-aux} -\end{figure} - - -%%%%%%% - -\subsection{Types} - -{\Coq} terms are typed. {\Coq} types are recognized by the same -syntactic class as {\term}. We denote by {\type} the semantic subclass -of types inside the syntactic class {\term}. -\index{type@{\type}} - - -\subsection{Qualified identifiers and simple identifiers -\label{qualid} -\label{ident}} - -{\em Qualified identifiers} ({\qualid}) denote {\em global constants} -(definitions, lemmas, theorems, remarks or facts), {\em global -variables} (parameters or axioms), {\em inductive -types} or {\em constructors of inductive types}. -{\em Simple identifiers} (or shortly {\ident}) are a -syntactic subset of qualified identifiers. Identifiers may also -denote local {\em variables}, what qualified identifiers do not. - -\subsection{Numerals -\label{numerals}} - -Numerals have no definite semantics in the calculus. They are mere -notations that can be bound to objects through the notation mechanism -(see Chapter~\ref{Addoc-syntax} for details). Initially, numerals are -bound to Peano's representation of natural numbers -(see~\ref{libnats}). - -Note: negative integers are not at the same level as {\num}, for this -would make precedence unnatural. - -\subsection{Sorts -\index{Sorts} -\index{Type@{\Type}} -\index{Set@{\Set}} -\index{Prop@{\Prop}} -\index{Sorts} -\label{Gallina-sorts}} - -There are three sorts \Set, \Prop\ and \Type. -\begin{itemize} -\item \Prop\ is the universe of {\em logical propositions}. -The logical propositions themselves are typing the proofs. -We denote propositions by {\form}. This constitutes a semantic -subclass of the syntactic class {\term}. -\index{form@{\form}} -\item \Set\ is is the universe of {\em program -types} or {\em specifications}. -The specifications themselves are typing the programs. -We denote specifications by {\specif}. This constitutes a semantic -subclass of the syntactic class {\term}. -\index{specif@{\specif}} -\item {\Type} is the type of {\Set} and {\Prop} -\end{itemize} -\noindent More on sorts can be found in Section~\ref{Sorts}. - -\subsection{Binders -\label{Binders} -\index{binders}} - -Various constructions such as {\tt fun}, {\tt forall}, {\tt fix} and -{\tt cofix} {\em bind} variables. A binding is represented by an -identifier. If the binding variable is not used in the expression, the -identifier can be replaced by the symbol {\tt \_}. When the type of a -bound variable cannot be synthesized by the system, it can be -specified with the notation {\tt (}\,{\ident}\,{\tt :}\,{\type}\,{\tt -)}. There is also a notation for a sequence of binding variables -sharing the same type: {\tt (}\,{\ident$_1$}\ldots{\ident$_n$}\,{\tt -:}\,{\type}\,{\tt )}. A binder can also be any pattern prefixed by a quote, -e.g. {\tt '(x,y)}. - -Some constructions allow the binding of a variable to value. This is -called a ``let-binder''. The entry {\binder} of the grammar accepts -either an assumption binder as defined above or a let-binder. -The notation in the -latter case is {\tt (}\,{\ident}\,{\tt :=}\,{\term}\,{\tt )}. In a -let-binder, only one variable can be introduced at the same -time. It is also possible to give the type of the variable as follows: -{\tt (}\,{\ident}\,{\tt :}\,{\term}\,{\tt :=}\,{\term}\,{\tt )}. - -Lists of {\binder} are allowed. In the case of {\tt fun} and {\tt - forall}, it is intended that at least one binder of the list is an -assumption otherwise {\tt fun} and {\tt forall} gets identical. Moreover, -parentheses can be omitted in the case of a single sequence of -bindings sharing the same type (e.g.: {\tt fun~(x~y~z~:~A)~=>~t} can -be shortened in {\tt fun~x~y~z~:~A~=>~t}). - -\subsection{Abstractions -\label{abstractions} -\index{abstractions}} -\index{fun@{{\tt fun \ldots => \ldots}}} - -The expression ``{\tt fun} {\ident} {\tt :} {\type} {\tt =>}~{\term}'' -defines the {\em abstraction} of the variable {\ident}, of type -{\type}, over the term {\term}. It denotes a function of the variable -{\ident} that evaluates to the expression {\term} (e.g. {\tt fun x:$A$ -=> x} denotes the identity function on type $A$). -% The variable {\ident} is called the {\em parameter} of the function -% (we sometimes say the {\em formal parameter}). -The keyword {\tt fun} can be followed by several binders as given in -Section~\ref{Binders}. Functions over several variables are -equivalent to an iteration of one-variable functions. For instance the -expression ``{\tt fun}~{\ident$_{1}$}~{\ldots}~{\ident$_{n}$}~{\tt -:}~\type~{\tt =>}~{\term}'' denotes the same function as ``{\tt -fun}~{\ident$_{1}$}~{\tt :}~\type~{\tt =>}~{\ldots}~{\tt -fun}~{\ident$_{n}$}~{\tt :}~\type~{\tt =>}~{\term}''. If a let-binder -occurs in the list of binders, it is expanded to a let-in definition -(see Section~\ref{let-in}). - -\subsection{Products -\label{products} -\index{products}} -\index{forall@{{\tt forall \ldots, \ldots}}} - -The expression ``{\tt forall}~{\ident}~{\tt :}~{\type}{\tt -,}~{\term}'' denotes the {\em product} of the variable {\ident} of -type {\type}, over the term {\term}. As for abstractions, {\tt forall} -is followed by a binder list, and products over several variables are -equivalent to an iteration of one-variable products. -Note that {\term} is intended to be a type. - -If the variable {\ident} occurs in {\term}, the product is called {\em -dependent product}. The intention behind a dependent product {\tt -forall}~$x$~{\tt :}~{$A$}{\tt ,}~{$B$} is twofold. It denotes either -the universal quantification of the variable $x$ of type $A$ in the -proposition $B$ or the functional dependent product from $A$ to $B$ (a -construction usually written $\Pi_{x:A}.B$ in set theory). - -Non dependent product types have a special notation: ``$A$ {\tt ->} -$B$'' stands for ``{\tt forall \_:}$A${\tt ,}~$B$''. The {\em non dependent -product} is used both to denote the propositional implication and -function types. - -\subsection{Applications -\label{applications} -\index{applications}} - -The expression \term$_0$ \term$_1$ denotes the application of -\term$_0$ to \term$_1$. - -The expression {\tt }\term$_0$ \term$_1$ ... \term$_n${\tt} -denotes the application of the term \term$_0$ to the arguments -\term$_1$ ... then \term$_n$. It is equivalent to {\tt (} {\ldots} -{\tt (} {\term$_0$} {\term$_1$} {\tt )} {\ldots} {\tt )} {\term$_n$} {\tt }: -associativity is to the left. - -The notation {\tt (}\,{\ident}\,{\tt :=}\,{\term}\,{\tt )} for -arguments is used for making explicit the value of implicit arguments -(see Section~\ref{Implicits-explicitation}). - -\subsection{Type cast -\label{typecast} -\index{Cast}} -\index{cast@{{\tt(\ldots: \ldots)}}} - -The expression ``{\term}~{\tt :}~{\type}'' is a type cast -expression. It enforces the type of {\term} to be {\type}. - -``{\term}~{\tt <:}~{\type}'' locally sets up the virtual machine for checking -that {\term} has type {\type}. - -\subsection{Inferable subterms -\label{hole} -\index{\_}} - -Expressions often contain redundant pieces of information. Subterms that -can be automatically inferred by {\Coq} can be replaced by the -symbol ``\_'' and {\Coq} will guess the missing piece of information. - -\subsection{Let-in definitions -\label{let-in} -\index{Let-in definitions} -\index{let-in}} -\index{let@{{\tt let \ldots := \ldots in \ldots}}} - - -{\tt let}~{\ident}~{\tt :=}~{\term$_1$}~{\tt in}~{\term$_2$} denotes -the local binding of \term$_1$ to the variable $\ident$ in -\term$_2$. -There is a syntactic sugar for let-in definition of functions: {\tt -let} {\ident} {\binder$_1$} {\ldots} {\binder$_n$} {\tt :=} {\term$_1$} -{\tt in} {\term$_2$} stands for {\tt let} {\ident} {\tt := fun} -{\binder$_1$} {\ldots} {\binder$_n$} {\tt =>} {\term$_1$} {\tt in} -{\term$_2$}. - -\subsection{Definition by case analysis -\label{caseanalysis} -\index{match@{\tt match\ldots with\ldots end}}} - -Objects of inductive types can be destructurated by a case-analysis -construction called {\em pattern-matching} expression. A -pattern-matching expression is used to analyze the structure of an -inductive objects and to apply specific treatments accordingly. - -This paragraph describes the basic form of pattern-matching. See -Section~\ref{Mult-match} and Chapter~\ref{Mult-match-full} for the -description of the general form. The basic form of pattern-matching is -characterized by a single {\caseitem} expression, a {\multpattern} -restricted to a single {\pattern} and {\pattern} restricted to the -form {\qualid} \nelist{\ident}{}. - -The expression {\tt match} {\term$_0$} {\returntype} {\tt with} -{\pattern$_1$} {\tt =>} {\term$_1$} {\tt $|$} {\ldots} {\tt $|$} -{\pattern$_n$} {\tt =>} {\term$_n$} {\tt end}, denotes a {\em -pattern-matching} over the term {\term$_0$} (expected to be of an -inductive type $I$). The terms {\term$_1$}\ldots{\term$_n$} are the -{\em branches} of the pattern-matching expression. Each of -{\pattern$_i$} has a form \qualid~\nelist{\ident}{} where {\qualid} -must denote a constructor. There should be exactly one branch for -every constructor of $I$. - -The {\returntype} expresses the type returned by the whole {\tt match} -expression. There are several cases. In the {\em non dependent} case, -all branches have the same type, and the {\returntype} is the common -type of branches. In this case, {\returntype} can usually be omitted -as it can be inferred from the type of the branches\footnote{Except if -the inductive type is empty in which case there is no equation that can be -used to infer the return type.}. - -In the {\em dependent} case, there are three subcases. In the first -subcase, the type in each branch may depend on the exact value being -matched in the branch. In this case, the whole pattern-matching itself -depends on the term being matched. This dependency of the term being -matched in the return type is expressed with an ``{\tt as {\ident}}'' -clause where {\ident} is dependent in the return type. -For instance, in the following example: -\begin{coq_example*} -Inductive bool : Type := true : bool | false : bool. -Inductive eq (A:Type) (x:A) : A -> Prop := eq_refl : eq A x x. -Inductive or (A:Prop) (B:Prop) : Prop := -| or_introl : A -> or A B -| or_intror : B -> or A B. -Definition bool_case (b:bool) : or (eq bool b true) (eq bool b false) -:= match b as x return or (eq bool x true) (eq bool x false) with - | true => or_introl (eq bool true true) (eq bool true false) - (eq_refl bool true) - | false => or_intror (eq bool false true) (eq bool false false) - (eq_refl bool false) - end. -\end{coq_example*} -the branches have respective types {\tt or (eq bool true true) (eq -bool true false)} and {\tt or (eq bool false true) (eq bool false -false)} while the whole pattern-matching expression has type {\tt or -(eq bool b true) (eq bool b false)}, the identifier {\tt x} being used -to represent the dependency. Remark that when the term being matched -is a variable, the {\tt as} clause can be omitted and the term being -matched can serve itself as binding name in the return type. For -instance, the following alternative definition is accepted and has the -same meaning as the previous one. -\begin{coq_eval} -Reset bool_case. -\end{coq_eval} -\begin{coq_example*} -Definition bool_case (b:bool) : or (eq bool b true) (eq bool b false) -:= match b return or (eq bool b true) (eq bool b false) with - | true => or_introl (eq bool true true) (eq bool true false) - (eq_refl bool true) - | false => or_intror (eq bool false true) (eq bool false false) - (eq_refl bool false) - end. -\end{coq_example*} - -The second subcase is only relevant for annotated inductive types such -as the equality predicate (see Section~\ref{Equality}), the order -predicate on natural numbers % (see Section~\ref{le}) % undefined reference -or the type of -lists of a given length (see Section~\ref{listn}). In this configuration, -the type of each branch can depend on the type dependencies specific -to the branch and the whole pattern-matching expression has a type -determined by the specific dependencies in the type of the term being -matched. This dependency of the return type in the annotations of the -inductive type is expressed using a - ``in~I~\_~$\ldots$~\_~\pattern$_1$~$\ldots$~\pattern$_n$'' clause, where -\begin{itemize} -\item $I$ is the inductive type of the term being matched; - -\item the {\_}'s are matching the parameters of the inductive type: -the return type is not dependent on them. - -\item the \pattern$_i$'s are matching the annotations of the inductive - type: the return type is dependent on them - -\item in the basic case which we describe below, each \pattern$_i$ is a - name \ident$_i$; see \ref{match-in-patterns} for the general case - -\end{itemize} - -For instance, in the following example: -\begin{coq_example*} -Definition eq_sym (A:Type) (x y:A) (H:eq A x y) : eq A y x := - match H in eq _ _ z return eq A z x with - | eq_refl _ _ => eq_refl A x - end. -\end{coq_example*} -the type of the branch has type {\tt eq~A~x~x} because the third -argument of {\tt eq} is {\tt x} in the type of the pattern {\tt -refl\_equal}. On the contrary, the type of the whole pattern-matching -expression has type {\tt eq~A~y~x} because the third argument of {\tt -eq} is {\tt y} in the type of {\tt H}. This dependency of the case -analysis in the third argument of {\tt eq} is expressed by the -identifier {\tt z} in the return type. - -Finally, the third subcase is a combination of the first and second -subcase. In particular, it only applies to pattern-matching on terms -in a type with annotations. For this third subcase, both -the clauses {\tt as} and {\tt in} are available. - -There are specific notations for case analysis on types with one or -two constructors: ``{\tt if {\ldots} then {\ldots} else {\ldots}}'' -and ``{\tt let (}\nelist{\ldots}{,}{\tt ) := } {\ldots} {\tt in} -{\ldots}'' (see Sections~\ref{if-then-else} and~\ref{Letin}). - -%\SeeAlso Section~\ref{Mult-match} for convenient extensions of pattern-matching. - -\subsection{Recursive functions -\label{fixpoints} -\index{fix@{fix \ident$_i$\{\dots\}}}} - -The expression ``{\tt fix} \ident$_1$ \binder$_1$ {\tt :} {\type$_1$} -\texttt{:=} \term$_1$ {\tt with} {\ldots} {\tt with} \ident$_n$ -\binder$_n$~{\tt :} {\type$_n$} \texttt{:=} \term$_n$ {\tt for} -{\ident$_i$}'' denotes the $i$\nth component of a block of functions -defined by mutual well-founded recursion. It is the local counterpart -of the {\tt Fixpoint} command. See Section~\ref{Fixpoint} for more -details. When $n=1$, the ``{\tt for}~{\ident$_i$}'' clause is omitted. - -The expression ``{\tt cofix} \ident$_1$~\binder$_1$ {\tt :} -{\type$_1$} {\tt with} {\ldots} {\tt with} \ident$_n$ \binder$_n$ {\tt -:} {\type$_n$}~{\tt for} {\ident$_i$}'' denotes the $i$\nth component of -a block of terms defined by a mutual guarded co-recursion. It is the -local counterpart of the {\tt CoFixpoint} command. See -Section~\ref{CoFixpoint} for more details. When $n=1$, the ``{\tt -for}~{\ident$_i$}'' clause is omitted. - -The association of a single fixpoint and a local -definition have a special syntax: ``{\tt let fix}~$f$~{\ldots}~{\tt - :=}~{\ldots}~{\tt in}~{\ldots}'' stands for ``{\tt let}~$f$~{\tt := - fix}~$f$~\ldots~{\tt :=}~{\ldots}~{\tt in}~{\ldots}''. The same - applies for co-fixpoints. - - -\section{The Vernacular -\label{Vernacular}} - -\begin{figure}[tbp] -\begin{centerframe} -\begin{tabular}{lcl} -{\sentence} & ::= & {\assumption} \\ - & $|$ & {\definition} \\ - & $|$ & {\inductive} \\ - & $|$ & {\fixpoint} \\ - & $|$ & {\assertion} {\proof} \\ -&&\\ -%% Assumptions -{\assumption} & ::= & {\assumptionkeyword} {\assums} {\tt .} \\ -&&\\ -{\assumptionkeyword} & $\!\!$ ::= & {\tt Axiom} $|$ {\tt Conjecture} \\ - & $|$ & {\tt Parameter} $|$ {\tt Parameters} \\ - & $|$ & {\tt Variable} $|$ {\tt Variables} \\ - & $|$ & {\tt Hypothesis} $|$ {\tt Hypotheses}\\ -&&\\ -{\assums} & ::= & \nelist{\ident}{} {\tt :} {\term} \\ - & $|$ & \nelist{{\tt (} \nelist{\ident}{} {\tt :} {\term} {\tt )}}{} \\ -&&\\ -%% Definitions -{\definition} & ::= & - \zeroone{\tt Local} {\tt Definition} {\ident} \zeroone{\binders} {\typecstr} {\tt :=} {\term} {\tt .} \\ - & $|$ & {\tt Let} {\ident} \zeroone{\binders} {\typecstr} {\tt :=} {\term} {\tt .} \\ -&&\\ -%% Inductives -{\inductive} & ::= & - {\tt Inductive} \nelist{\inductivebody}{with} {\tt .} \\ - & $|$ & {\tt CoInductive} \nelist{\inductivebody}{with} {\tt .} \\ - & & \\ -{\inductivebody} & ::= & - {\ident} \zeroone{\binders} {\typecstr} {\tt :=} \\ - && ~~\zeroone{\zeroone{\tt |} \nelist{$\!${\ident}$\!$ \zeroone{\binders} {\typecstr}}{|}} \\ - & & \\ %% TODO: where ... -%% Fixpoints -{\fixpoint} & ::= & {\tt Fixpoint} \nelist{\fixpointbody}{with} {\tt .} \\ - & $|$ & {\tt CoFixpoint} \nelist{\cofixpointbody}{with} {\tt .} \\ -&&\\ -%% Lemmas & proofs -{\assertion} & ::= & - {\statkwd} {\ident} \zeroone{\binders} {\tt :} {\term} {\tt .} \\ -&&\\ - {\statkwd} & ::= & {\tt Theorem} $|$ {\tt Lemma} \\ - & $|$ & {\tt Remark} $|$ {\tt Fact}\\ - & $|$ & {\tt Corollary} $|$ {\tt Proposition} \\ - & $|$ & {\tt Definition} $|$ {\tt Example} \\\\ -&&\\ -{\proof} & ::= & {\tt Proof} {\tt .} {\dots} {\tt Qed} {\tt .}\\ - & $|$ & {\tt Proof} {\tt .} {\dots} {\tt Defined} {\tt .}\\ - & $|$ & {\tt Proof} {\tt .} {\dots} {\tt Admitted} {\tt .}\\ -\end{tabular} -\end{centerframe} -\caption{Syntax of sentences} -\label{sentences-syntax} -\end{figure} - -Figure \ref{sentences-syntax} describes {\em The Vernacular} which is the -language of commands of \gallina. A sentence of the vernacular -language, like in many natural languages, begins with a capital letter -and ends with a dot. - -The different kinds of command are described hereafter. They all suppose -that the terms occurring in the sentences are well-typed. - -%% -%% Axioms and Parameters -%% -\subsection{Assumptions -\index{Declarations} -\label{Declarations}} - -Assumptions extend the environment\index{Environment} with axioms, -parameters, hypotheses or variables. An assumption binds an {\ident} -to a {\type}. It is accepted by {\Coq} if and only if this {\type} is -a correct type in the environment preexisting the declaration and if -{\ident} was not previously defined in the same module. This {\type} -is considered to be the type (or specification, or statement) assumed -by {\ident} and we say that {\ident} has type {\type}. - -\subsubsection{{\tt Axiom {\ident} :{\term} .} -\comindex{Axiom} -\label{Axiom}} - -This command links {\term} to the name {\ident} as its specification -in the global context. The fact asserted by {\term} is thus assumed as -a postulate. - -\begin{ErrMsgs} -\item \errindex{{\ident} already exists} -\end{ErrMsgs} - -\begin{Variants} -\item \comindex{Parameter}\comindex{Parameters} - {\tt Parameter {\ident} :{\term}.} \\ - Is equivalent to {\tt Axiom {\ident} : {\term}} - -\item {\tt Parameter {\ident$_1$} {\ldots} {\ident$_n$} {\tt :}{\term}.}\\ - Adds $n$ parameters with specification {\term} - -\item - {\tt Parameter\,% -(\,{\ident$_{1,1}$} {\ldots} {\ident$_{1,k_1}$}\,{\tt :}\,{\term$_1$} {\tt )}\;% -\ldots\;{\tt (}\,{\ident$_{n,1}$}{\ldots}{\ident$_{n,k_n}$}\,{\tt :}\,% -{\term$_n$} {\tt )}.}\\ - Adds $n$ blocks of parameters with different specifications. - -\item {\tt Local Axiom {\ident} : {\term}.}\\ -\comindex{Local Axiom} - Such axioms are never made accessible through their unqualified name by - {\tt Import} and its variants (see \ref{Import}). You have to explicitly - give their fully qualified name to refer to them. - -\item \comindex{Conjecture} - {\tt Conjecture {\ident} :{\term}.}\\ - Is equivalent to {\tt Axiom {\ident} : {\term}}. -\end{Variants} - -\noindent {\bf Remark: } It is possible to replace {\tt Parameter} by -{\tt Parameters}. - - -\subsubsection{{\tt Variable {\ident} :{\term}}. -\comindex{Variable} -\comindex{Variables} -\label{Variable}} - -This command links {\term} to the name {\ident} in the context of the -current section (see Section~\ref{Section} for a description of the section -mechanism). When the current section is closed, name {\ident} will be -unknown and every object using this variable will be explicitly -parametrized (the variable is {\em discharged}). Using the {\tt -Variable} command out of any section is equivalent to using {\tt -Local Parameter}. - -\begin{ErrMsgs} -\item \errindex{{\ident} already exists} -\end{ErrMsgs} - -\begin{Variants} -\item {\tt Variable {\ident$_1$} {\ldots} {\ident$_n$} {\tt :}{\term}.}\\ - Links {\term} to names {\ident$_1$} {\ldots} {\ident$_n$}. -\item - {\tt Variable\,% -(\,{\ident$_{1,1}$} {\ldots} {\ident$_{1,k_1}$}\,{\tt :}\,{\term$_1$} {\tt )}\;% -\ldots\;{\tt (}\,{\ident$_{n,1}$} {\ldots}{\ident$_{n,k_n}$}\,{\tt :}\,% -{\term$_n$} {\tt )}.}\\ - Adds $n$ blocks of variables with different specifications. -\item \comindex{Hypothesis} - \comindex{Hypotheses} - {\tt Hypothesis {\ident} {\tt :}{\term}.} \\ - \texttt{Hypothesis} is a synonymous of \texttt{Variable} -\end{Variants} - -\noindent {\bf Remark: } It is possible to replace {\tt Variable} by -{\tt Variables} and {\tt Hypothesis} by {\tt Hypotheses}. - -It is advised to use the keywords \verb:Axiom: and \verb:Hypothesis: -for logical postulates (i.e. when the assertion {\term} is of sort -\verb:Prop:), and to use the keywords \verb:Parameter: and -\verb:Variable: in other cases (corresponding to the declaration of an -abstract mathematical entity). - -%% -%% Definitions -%% -\subsection{Definitions -\index{Definitions} -\label{Basic-definitions}} - -Definitions extend the environment\index{Environment} with -associations of names to terms. A definition can be seen as a way to -give a meaning to a name or as a way to abbreviate a term. In any -case, the name can later be replaced at any time by its definition. - -The operation of unfolding a name into its definition is called -$\delta$-conversion\index{delta-reduction@$\delta$-reduction} (see -Section~\ref{delta}). A definition is accepted by the system if and -only if the defined term is well-typed in the current context of the -definition and if the name is not already used. The name defined by -the definition is called a {\em constant}\index{Constant} and the term -it refers to is its {\em body}. A definition has a type which is the -type of its body. - -A formal presentation of constants and environments is given in -Section~\ref{Typed-terms}. - -\subsubsection{\tt Definition {\ident} := {\term}. -\label{Definition} -\comindex{Definition}} - -This command binds {\term} to the name {\ident} in the -environment, provided that {\term} is well-typed. - -\begin{ErrMsgs} -\item \errindex{{\ident} already exists} -\end{ErrMsgs} - -\begin{Variants} -\item {\tt Definition} {\ident} {\tt :} {\term$_1$} {\tt :=} {\term$_2$}{\tt .}\\ - It checks that the type of {\term$_2$} is definitionally equal to - {\term$_1$}, and registers {\ident} as being of type {\term$_1$}, - and bound to value {\term$_2$}. -\item {\tt Definition} {\ident} {\binder$_1$} {\ldots} {\binder$_n$} - {\tt :} \term$_1$ {\tt :=} {\term$_2$}{\tt .}\\ - This is equivalent to \\ - {\tt Definition} {\ident} {\tt : forall}% - {\binder$_1$} {\ldots} {\binder$_n$}{\tt ,}\,\term$_1$\,{\tt :=}\,% - {\tt fun}\,{\binder$_1$} {\ldots} {\binder$_n$}\,{\tt =>}\,{\term$_2$}\,% - {\tt .} - -\item {\tt Local Definition {\ident} := {\term}.}\\ -\comindex{Local Definition} - Such definitions are never made accessible through their unqualified name by - {\tt Import} and its variants (see \ref{Import}). You have to explicitly - give their fully qualified name to refer to them. -\item {\tt Example {\ident} := {\term}.}\\ -{\tt Example} {\ident} {\tt :} {\term$_1$} {\tt :=} {\term$_2$}{\tt .}\\ -{\tt Example} {\ident} {\binder$_1$} {\ldots} {\binder$_n$} - {\tt :} {\term$_1$} {\tt :=} {\term$_2$}{\tt .}\\ -\comindex{Example} -These are synonyms of the {\tt Definition} forms. -\end{Variants} - -\begin{ErrMsgs} -\item \errindex{The term {\term} has type {\type} while it is expected to have type {\type}} -\end{ErrMsgs} - -\SeeAlso Sections \ref{Opaque}, \ref{Transparent}, \ref{unfold}. - -\subsubsection{\tt Let {\ident} := {\term}. -\comindex{Let}} - -This command binds the value {\term} to the name {\ident} in the -environment of the current section. The name {\ident} disappears -when the current section is eventually closed, and, all -persistent objects (such as theorems) defined within the -section and depending on {\ident} are prefixed by the let-in definition -{\tt let {\ident} := {\term} in}. Using the {\tt -Let} command out of any section is equivalent to using {\tt -Local Definition}. - -\begin{ErrMsgs} -\item \errindex{{\ident} already exists} -\end{ErrMsgs} - -\begin{Variants} -\item {\tt Let {\ident} : {\term$_1$} := {\term$_2$}.} -\item {\tt Let Fixpoint {\ident} \nelist{\fixpointbody}{with} {\tt .}.} -\item {\tt Let CoFixpoint {\ident} \nelist{\cofixpointbody}{with} {\tt .}.} -\end{Variants} - -\SeeAlso Sections \ref{Section} (section mechanism), \ref{Opaque}, -\ref{Transparent} (opaque/transparent constants), \ref{unfold} (tactic - {\tt unfold}). - -%% -%% Inductive Types -%% -\subsection{Inductive definitions -\index{Inductive definitions} -\label{gal-Inductive-Definitions} -\comindex{Inductive} -\label{Inductive} -\comindex{Variant} -\label{Variant}} - -We gradually explain simple inductive types, simple -annotated inductive types, simple parametric inductive types, -mutually inductive types. We explain also co-inductive types. - -\subsubsection{Simple inductive types} - -The definition of a simple inductive type has the following form: - -\medskip -\begin{tabular}{l} -{\tt Inductive} {\ident} {\tt :} {\sort} {\tt :=} \\ -\begin{tabular}{clcl} - & {\ident$_1$} & {\tt :} & {\type$_1$} \\ - {\tt |} & {\ldots} && \\ - {\tt |} & {\ident$_n$} & {\tt :} & {\type$_n$} \\ -\end{tabular} -\end{tabular} -\medskip - -The name {\ident} is the name of the inductively defined type and -{\sort} is the universes where it lives. -The names {\ident$_1$}, {\ldots}, {\ident$_n$} -are the names of its constructors and {\type$_1$}, {\ldots}, -{\type$_n$} their respective types. The types of the constructors have -to satisfy a {\em positivity condition} (see Section~\ref{Positivity}) -for {\ident}. This condition ensures the soundness of the inductive -definition. If this is the case, the names {\ident}, -{\ident$_1$}, {\ldots}, {\ident$_n$} are added to the environment with -their respective types. Accordingly to the universe where -the inductive type lives ({\it e.g.} its type {\sort}), {\Coq} provides a -number of destructors for {\ident}. Destructors are named -{\ident}{\tt\_ind}, {\ident}{\tt \_rec} or {\ident}{\tt \_rect} which -respectively correspond to elimination principles on {\tt Prop}, {\tt -Set} and {\tt Type}. The type of the destructors expresses structural -induction/recursion principles over objects of {\ident}. We give below -two examples of the use of the {\tt Inductive} definitions. - -The set of natural numbers is defined as: -\begin{coq_example} -Inductive nat : Set := - | O : nat - | S : nat -> nat. -\end{coq_example} - -The type {\tt nat} is defined as the least \verb:Set: containing {\tt - O} and closed by the {\tt S} constructor. The names {\tt nat}, -{\tt O} and {\tt S} are added to the environment. - -Now let us have a look at the elimination principles. They are three -of them: -{\tt nat\_ind}, {\tt nat\_rec} and {\tt nat\_rect}. The type of {\tt - nat\_ind} is: -\begin{coq_example} -Check nat_ind. -\end{coq_example} - -This is the well known structural induction principle over natural -numbers, i.e. the second-order form of Peano's induction principle. -It allows proving some universal property of natural numbers ({\tt -forall n:nat, P n}) by induction on {\tt n}. - -The types of {\tt nat\_rec} and {\tt nat\_rect} are similar, except -that they pertain to {\tt (P:nat->Set)} and {\tt (P:nat->Type)} -respectively . They correspond to primitive induction principles -(allowing dependent types) respectively over sorts \verb:Set: and -\verb:Type:. The constant {\ident}{\tt \_ind} is always provided, -whereas {\ident}{\tt \_rec} and {\ident}{\tt \_rect} can be impossible -to derive (for example, when {\ident} is a proposition). - -\begin{coq_eval} -Reset Initial. -\end{coq_eval} -\begin{Variants} -\item -\begin{coq_example*} -Inductive nat : Set := O | S (_:nat). -\end{coq_example*} -In the case where inductive types have no annotations (next section -gives an example of such annotations), -%the positivity condition implies that -a constructor can be defined by only giving the type of -its arguments. -\end{Variants} - -\subsubsection{Simple annotated inductive types} - -In an annotated inductive types, the universe where the inductive -type is defined is no longer a simple sort, but what is called an -arity, which is a type whose conclusion is a sort. - -As an example of annotated inductive types, let us define the -$even$ predicate: - -\begin{coq_example} -Inductive even : nat -> Prop := - | even_0 : even O - | even_SS : forall n:nat, even n -> even (S (S n)). -\end{coq_example} - -The type {\tt nat->Prop} means that {\tt even} is a unary predicate -(inductively defined) over natural numbers. The type of its two -constructors are the defining clauses of the predicate {\tt even}. The -type of {\tt even\_ind} is: - -\begin{coq_example} -Check even_ind. -\end{coq_example} - -From a mathematical point of view it asserts that the natural numbers -satisfying the predicate {\tt even} are exactly in the smallest set of -naturals satisfying the clauses {\tt even\_0} or {\tt even\_SS}. This -is why, when we want to prove any predicate {\tt P} over elements of -{\tt even}, it is enough to prove it for {\tt O} and to prove that if -any natural number {\tt n} satisfies {\tt P} its double successor {\tt - (S (S n))} satisfies also {\tt P}. This is indeed analogous to the -structural induction principle we got for {\tt nat}. - -\begin{ErrMsgs} -\item \errindex{Non strictly positive occurrence of {\ident} in {\type}} -\item \errindex{The conclusion of {\type} is not valid; it must be -built from {\ident}} -\end{ErrMsgs} - -\subsubsection{Parametrized inductive types} -In the previous example, each constructor introduces a -different instance of the predicate {\tt even}. In some cases, -all the constructors introduces the same generic instance of the -inductive definition, in which case, instead of an annotation, we use -a context of parameters which are binders shared by all the -constructors of the definition. - -% Inductive types may be parameterized. Parameters differ from inductive -% type annotations in the fact that recursive invokations of inductive -% types must always be done with the same values of parameters as its -% specification. - -The general scheme is: -\begin{center} -{\tt Inductive} {\ident} {\binder$_1$}\ldots{\binder$_k$} : {\term} := - {\ident$_1$}: {\term$_1$} | {\ldots} | {\ident$_n$}: \term$_n$ -{\tt .} -\end{center} -Parameters differ from inductive type annotations in the fact that the -conclusion of each type of constructor {\term$_i$} invoke the inductive -type with the same values of parameters as its specification. - - - -A typical example is the definition of polymorphic lists: -\begin{coq_example*} -Inductive list (A:Set) : Set := - | nil : list A - | cons : A -> list A -> list A. -\end{coq_example*} - -Note that in the type of {\tt nil} and {\tt cons}, we write {\tt - (list A)} and not just {\tt list}.\\ The constructors {\tt nil} and -{\tt cons} will have respectively types: - -\begin{coq_example} -Check nil. -Check cons. -\end{coq_example} - -Types of destructors are also quantified with {\tt (A:Set)}. - -\begin{coq_eval} -Reset Initial. -\end{coq_eval} -\begin{Variants} -\item -\begin{coq_example*} -Inductive list (A:Set) : Set := nil | cons (_:A) (_:list A). -\end{coq_example*} -This is an alternative definition of lists where we specify the -arguments of the constructors rather than their full type. -\item -\begin{coq_example*} -Variant sum (A B:Set) : Set := left : A -> sum A B | right : B -> sum A B. -\end{coq_example*} -The {\tt Variant} keyword is identical to the {\tt Inductive} keyword, -except that it disallows recursive definition of types (in particular -lists cannot be defined with the {\tt Variant} keyword). No induction -scheme is generated for this variant, unless the option -{\tt Nonrecursive Elimination Schemes} is set -(see~\ref{set-nonrecursive-elimination-schemes}). -\end{Variants} - -\begin{ErrMsgs} -\item \errindex{The {\num}th argument of {\ident} must be {\ident'} in -{\type}} -\end{ErrMsgs} - -\paragraph{New from \Coq{} V8.1} The condition on parameters for -inductive definitions has been relaxed since \Coq{} V8.1. It is now -possible in the type of a constructor, to invoke recursively the -inductive definition on an argument which is not the parameter itself. - -One can define~: -\begin{coq_example} -Inductive list2 (A:Set) : Set := - | nil2 : list2 A - | cons2 : A -> list2 (A*A) -> list2 A. -\end{coq_example} -\begin{coq_eval} -Reset list2. -\end{coq_eval} -that can also be written by specifying only the type of the arguments: -\begin{coq_example*} -Inductive list2 (A:Set) : Set := nil2 | cons2 (_:A) (_:list2 (A*A)). -\end{coq_example*} -But the following definition will give an error: -\begin{coq_example} -Fail Inductive listw (A:Set) : Set := - | nilw : listw (A*A) - | consw : A -> listw (A*A) -> listw (A*A). -\end{coq_example} -Because the conclusion of the type of constructors should be {\tt - listw A} in both cases. - -A parametrized inductive definition can be defined using -annotations instead of parameters but it will sometimes give a -different (bigger) sort for the inductive definition and will produce -a less convenient rule for case elimination. - -\SeeAlso Sections~\ref{Cic-inductive-definitions} and~\ref{Tac-induction}. - - -\subsubsection{Mutually defined inductive types -\comindex{Inductive} -\label{Mutual-Inductive}} - -The definition of a block of mutually inductive types has the form: - -\medskip -{\tt -\begin{tabular}{l} -Inductive {\ident$_1$} : {\type$_1$} := \\ -\begin{tabular}{clcl} - & {\ident$_1^1$} &:& {\type$_1^1$} \\ - | & {\ldots} && \\ - | & {\ident$_{n_1}^1$} &:& {\type$_{n_1}^1$} -\end{tabular} \\ -with\\ -~{\ldots} \\ -with {\ident$_m$} : {\type$_m$} := \\ -\begin{tabular}{clcl} - & {\ident$_1^m$} &:& {\type$_1^m$} \\ - | & {\ldots} \\ - | & {\ident$_{n_m}^m$} &:& {\type$_{n_m}^m$}. -\end{tabular} -\end{tabular} -} -\medskip - -\noindent It has the same semantics as the above {\tt Inductive} -definition for each \ident$_1$, {\ldots}, \ident$_m$. All names -\ident$_1$, {\ldots}, \ident$_m$ and \ident$_1^1$, \dots, -\ident$_{n_m}^m$ are simultaneously added to the environment. Then -well-typing of constructors can be checked. Each one of the -\ident$_1$, {\ldots}, \ident$_m$ can be used on its own. - -It is also possible to parametrize these inductive definitions. -However, parameters correspond to a local -context in which the whole set of inductive declarations is done. For -this reason, the parameters must be strictly the same for each -inductive types The extended syntax is: - -\medskip -\begin{tabular}{l} -{\tt Inductive} {\ident$_1$} {\params} {\tt :} {\type$_1$} {\tt :=} \\ -\begin{tabular}{clcl} - & {\ident$_1^1$} &{\tt :}& {\type$_1^1$} \\ - {\tt |} & {\ldots} && \\ - {\tt |} & {\ident$_{n_1}^1$} &{\tt :}& {\type$_{n_1}^1$} -\end{tabular} \\ -{\tt with}\\ -~{\ldots} \\ -{\tt with} {\ident$_m$} {\params} {\tt :} {\type$_m$} {\tt :=} \\ -\begin{tabular}{clcl} - & {\ident$_1^m$} &{\tt :}& {\type$_1^m$} \\ - {\tt |} & {\ldots} \\ - {\tt |} & {\ident$_{n_m}^m$} &{\tt :}& {\type$_{n_m}^m$}. -\end{tabular} -\end{tabular} -\medskip - -\Example -The typical example of a mutual inductive data type is the one for -trees and forests. We assume given two types $A$ and $B$ as variables. -It can be declared the following way. - -\begin{coq_eval} -Reset Initial. -\end{coq_eval} -\begin{coq_example*} -Variables A B : Set. -Inductive tree : Set := - node : A -> forest -> tree -with forest : Set := - | leaf : B -> forest - | cons : tree -> forest -> forest. -\end{coq_example*} - -This declaration generates automatically six induction -principles. They are respectively -called {\tt tree\_rec}, {\tt tree\_ind}, {\tt - tree\_rect}, {\tt forest\_rec}, {\tt forest\_ind}, {\tt - forest\_rect}. These ones are not the most general ones but are -just the induction principles corresponding to each inductive part -seen as a single inductive definition. - -To illustrate this point on our example, we give the types of {\tt - tree\_rec} and {\tt forest\_rec}. - -\begin{coq_example} -Check tree_rec. -Check forest_rec. -\end{coq_example} - -Assume we want to parametrize our mutual inductive definitions with -the two type variables $A$ and $B$, the declaration should be done the -following way: - -\begin{coq_eval} -Reset tree. -\end{coq_eval} -\begin{coq_example*} -Inductive tree (A B:Set) : Set := - node : A -> forest A B -> tree A B -with forest (A B:Set) : Set := - | leaf : B -> forest A B - | cons : tree A B -> forest A B -> forest A B. -\end{coq_example*} - -Assume we define an inductive definition inside a section. When the -section is closed, the variables declared in the section and occurring -free in the declaration are added as parameters to the inductive -definition. - -\SeeAlso Section~\ref{Section}. - -\subsubsection{Co-inductive types -\label{CoInductiveTypes} -\comindex{CoInductive}} - -The objects of an inductive type are well-founded with respect to the -constructors of the type. In other words, such objects contain only a -{\it finite} number of constructors. Co-inductive types arise from -relaxing this condition, and admitting types whose objects contain an -infinity of constructors. Infinite objects are introduced by a -non-ending (but effective) process of construction, defined in terms -of the constructors of the type. - -An example of a co-inductive type is the type of infinite sequences of -natural numbers, usually called streams. It can be introduced in \Coq\ -using the \texttt{CoInductive} command: -\begin{coq_example} -CoInductive Stream : Set := - Seq : nat -> Stream -> Stream. -\end{coq_example} - -The syntax of this command is the same as the command \texttt{Inductive} -(see Section~\ref{gal-Inductive-Definitions}). Notice that no -principle of induction is derived from the definition of a -co-inductive type, since such principles only make sense for inductive -ones. For co-inductive ones, the only elimination principle is case -analysis. For example, the usual destructors on streams -\texttt{hd:Stream->nat} and \texttt{tl:Str->Str} can be defined as -follows: -\begin{coq_example} -Definition hd (x:Stream) := let (a,s) := x in a. -Definition tl (x:Stream) := let (a,s) := x in s. -\end{coq_example} - -Definition of co-inductive predicates and blocks of mutually -co-inductive definitions are also allowed. An example of a -co-inductive predicate is the extensional equality on streams: - -\begin{coq_example} -CoInductive EqSt : Stream -> Stream -> Prop := - eqst : - forall s1 s2:Stream, - hd s1 = hd s2 -> EqSt (tl s1) (tl s2) -> EqSt s1 s2. -\end{coq_example} - -In order to prove the extensionally equality of two streams $s_1$ and -$s_2$ we have to construct an infinite proof of equality, that is, -an infinite object of type $(\texttt{EqSt}\;s_1\;s_2)$. We will see -how to introduce infinite objects in Section~\ref{CoFixpoint}. - -%% -%% (Co-)Fixpoints -%% -\subsection{Definition of recursive functions} - -\subsubsection{Definition of functions by recursion over inductive objects} - -This section describes the primitive form of definition by recursion -over inductive objects. See Section~\ref{Function} for more advanced -constructions. The command: -\begin{center} - \texttt{Fixpoint {\ident} {\params} {\tt \{struct} - \ident$_0$ {\tt \}} : type$_0$ := \term$_0$ - \comindex{Fixpoint}\label{Fixpoint}} -\end{center} -allows defining functions by pattern-matching over inductive objects -using a fixed point construction. -The meaning of this declaration is to define {\it ident} a recursive -function with arguments specified by the binders in {\params} such -that {\it ident} applied to arguments corresponding to these binders -has type \type$_0$, and is equivalent to the expression \term$_0$. The -type of the {\ident} is consequently {\tt forall {\params} {\tt,} - \type$_0$} and the value is equivalent to {\tt fun {\params} {\tt - =>} \term$_0$}. - -To be accepted, a {\tt Fixpoint} definition has to satisfy some -syntactical constraints on a special argument called the decreasing -argument. They are needed to ensure that the {\tt Fixpoint} definition -always terminates. The point of the {\tt \{struct \ident {\tt \}}} -annotation is to let the user tell the system which argument decreases -along the recursive calls. For instance, one can define the addition -function as : - -\begin{coq_example} -Fixpoint add (n m:nat) {struct n} : nat := - match n with - | O => m - | S p => S (add p m) - end. -\end{coq_example} - -The {\tt \{struct \ident {\tt \}}} annotation may be left implicit, in -this case the system try successively arguments from left to right -until it finds one that satisfies the decreasing condition. Note that -some fixpoints may have several arguments that fit as decreasing -arguments, and this choice influences the reduction of the -fixpoint. Hence an explicit annotation must be used if the leftmost -decreasing argument is not the desired one. Writing explicit -annotations can also speed up type-checking of large mutual fixpoints. - -The {\tt match} operator matches a value (here \verb:n:) with the -various constructors of its (inductive) type. The remaining arguments -give the respective values to be returned, as functions of the -parameters of the corresponding constructor. Thus here when \verb:n: -equals \verb:O: we return \verb:m:, and when \verb:n: equals -\verb:(S p): we return \verb:(S (add p m)):. - -The {\tt match} operator is formally described -in detail in Section~\ref{Caseexpr}. The system recognizes that in -the inductive call {\tt (add p m)} the first argument actually -decreases because it is a {\em pattern variable} coming from {\tt match - n with}. - -\Example The following definition is not correct and generates an -error message: - -\begin{coq_eval} -Set Printing Depth 50. -\end{coq_eval} -% (********** The following is not correct and should produce **********) -% (********* Error: Recursive call to wrongplus ... **********) -\begin{coq_example} -Fail Fixpoint wrongplus (n m:nat) {struct n} : nat := - match m with - | O => n - | S p => S (wrongplus n p) - end. -\end{coq_example} - -because the declared decreasing argument {\tt n} actually does not -decrease in the recursive call. The function computing the addition -over the second argument should rather be written: - -\begin{coq_example*} -Fixpoint plus (n m:nat) {struct m} : nat := - match m with - | O => n - | S p => S (plus n p) - end. -\end{coq_example*} - -The ordinary match operation on natural numbers can be mimicked in the -following way. -\begin{coq_example*} -Fixpoint nat_match - (C:Set) (f0:C) (fS:nat -> C -> C) (n:nat) {struct n} : C := - match n with - | O => f0 - | S p => fS p (nat_match C f0 fS p) - end. -\end{coq_example*} -The recursive call may not only be on direct subterms of the recursive -variable {\tt n} but also on a deeper subterm and we can directly -write the function {\tt mod2} which gives the remainder modulo 2 of a -natural number. -\begin{coq_example*} -Fixpoint mod2 (n:nat) : nat := - match n with - | O => O - | S p => match p with - | O => S O - | S q => mod2 q - end - end. -\end{coq_example*} -In order to keep the strong normalization property, the fixed point -reduction will only be performed when the argument in position of the -decreasing argument (which type should be in an inductive definition) -starts with a constructor. - -The {\tt Fixpoint} construction enjoys also the {\tt with} extension -to define functions over mutually defined inductive types or more -generally any mutually recursive definitions. - -\begin{Variants} -\item {\tt Fixpoint} {\ident$_1$} {\params$_1$} {\tt :} {\type$_1$} {\tt :=} {\term$_1$}\\ - {\tt with} {\ldots} \\ - {\tt with} {\ident$_m$} {\params$_m$} {\tt :} {\type$_m$} {\tt :=} {\term$_m$}\\ - Allows to define simultaneously {\ident$_1$}, {\ldots}, - {\ident$_m$}. -\end{Variants} - -\Example -The size of trees and forests can be defined the following way: -\begin{coq_eval} -Reset Initial. -Variables A B : Set. -Inductive tree : Set := - node : A -> forest -> tree -with forest : Set := - | leaf : B -> forest - | cons : tree -> forest -> forest. -\end{coq_eval} -\begin{coq_example*} -Fixpoint tree_size (t:tree) : nat := - match t with - | node a f => S (forest_size f) - end - with forest_size (f:forest) : nat := - match f with - | leaf b => 1 - | cons t f' => (tree_size t + forest_size f') - end. -\end{coq_example*} -A generic command {\tt Scheme} is useful to build automatically various -mutual induction principles. It is described in Section~\ref{Scheme}. - -\subsubsection{Definitions of recursive objects in co-inductive types} - -The command: -\begin{center} - \texttt{CoFixpoint {\ident} : \type$_0$ := \term$_0$} - \comindex{CoFixpoint}\label{CoFixpoint} -\end{center} -introduces a method for constructing an infinite object of a -coinduc\-tive type. For example, the stream containing all natural -numbers can be introduced applying the following method to the number -\texttt{O} (see Section~\ref{CoInductiveTypes} for the definition of -{\tt Stream}, {\tt hd} and {\tt tl}): -\begin{coq_eval} -Reset Initial. -CoInductive Stream : Set := - Seq : nat -> Stream -> Stream. -Definition hd (x:Stream) := match x with - | Seq a s => a - end. -Definition tl (x:Stream) := match x with - | Seq a s => s - end. -\end{coq_eval} -\begin{coq_example} -CoFixpoint from (n:nat) : Stream := Seq n (from (S n)). -\end{coq_example} - -Oppositely to recursive ones, there is no decreasing argument in a -co-recursive definition. To be admissible, a method of construction -must provide at least one extra constructor of the infinite object for -each iteration. A syntactical guard condition is imposed on -co-recursive definitions in order to ensure this: each recursive call -in the definition must be protected by at least one constructor, and -only by constructors. That is the case in the former definition, where -the single recursive call of \texttt{from} is guarded by an -application of \texttt{Seq}. On the contrary, the following recursive -function does not satisfy the guard condition: - -\begin{coq_eval} -Set Printing Depth 50. -\end{coq_eval} -% (********** The following is not correct and should produce **********) -% (***************** Error: Unguarded recursive call *******************) -\begin{coq_example} -Fail CoFixpoint filter (p:nat -> bool) (s:Stream) : Stream := - if p (hd s) then Seq (hd s) (filter p (tl s)) else filter p (tl s). -\end{coq_example} - -The elimination of co-recursive definition is done lazily, i.e. the -definition is expanded only when it occurs at the head of an -application which is the argument of a case analysis expression. In -any other context, it is considered as a canonical expression which is -completely evaluated. We can test this using the command -\texttt{Eval}, which computes the normal forms of a term: - -\begin{coq_example} -Eval compute in (from 0). -Eval compute in (hd (from 0)). -Eval compute in (tl (from 0)). -\end{coq_example} - -\begin{Variants} -\item{\tt CoFixpoint {\ident$_1$} {\params} :{\type$_1$} := - {\term$_1$}}\\ As for most constructions, arguments of co-fixpoints - expressions can be introduced before the {\tt :=} sign. -\item{\tt CoFixpoint} {\ident$_1$} {\tt :} {\type$_1$} {\tt :=} {\term$_1$}\\ - {\tt with}\\ - \mbox{}\hspace{0.1cm} {\ldots} \\ - {\tt with} {\ident$_m$} {\tt :} {\type$_m$} {\tt :=} {\term$_m$}\\ -As in the \texttt{Fixpoint} command (see Section~\ref{Fixpoint}), it -is possible to introduce a block of mutually dependent methods. -\end{Variants} - -%% -%% Theorems & Lemmas -%% -\subsection{Assertions and proofs} -\label{Assertions} - -An assertion states a proposition (or a type) of which the proof (or -an inhabitant of the type) is interactively built using tactics. The -interactive proof mode is described in -Chapter~\ref{Proof-handling} and the tactics in Chapter~\ref{Tactics}. -The basic assertion command is: - -\subsubsection{\tt Theorem {\ident} \zeroone{\binders} : {\type}. -\comindex{Theorem}} - -After the statement is asserted, {\Coq} needs a proof. Once a proof of -{\type} under the assumptions represented by {\binders} is given and -validated, the proof is generalized into a proof of {\tt forall - \zeroone{\binders}, {\type}} and the theorem is bound to the name -{\ident} in the environment. - -\begin{ErrMsgs} - -\item \errindex{The term {\form} has type {\ldots} which should be Set, - Prop or Type} - -\item \errindexbis{{\ident} already exists}{already exists} - - The name you provided is already defined. You have then to choose - another name. - -\end{ErrMsgs} - -\begin{Variants} -\item {\tt Lemma {\ident} \zeroone{\binders} : {\type}.}\comindex{Lemma}\\ - {\tt Remark {\ident} \zeroone{\binders} : {\type}.}\comindex{Remark}\\ - {\tt Fact {\ident} \zeroone{\binders} : {\type}.}\comindex{Fact}\\ - {\tt Corollary {\ident} \zeroone{\binders} : {\type}.}\comindex{Corollary}\\ - {\tt Proposition {\ident} \zeroone{\binders} : {\type}.}\comindex{Proposition} - -These commands are synonyms of \texttt{Theorem {\ident} \zeroone{\binders} : {\type}}. - -\item {\tt Theorem \nelist{{\ident} \zeroone{\binders}: {\type}}{with}.} - -This command is useful for theorems that are proved by simultaneous -induction over a mutually inductive assumption, or that assert mutually -dependent statements in some mutual co-inductive type. It is equivalent -to {\tt Fixpoint} or {\tt CoFixpoint} -(see Section~\ref{CoFixpoint}) but using tactics to build the proof of -the statements (or the body of the specification, depending on the -point of view). The inductive or co-inductive types on which the -induction or coinduction has to be done is assumed to be non ambiguous -and is guessed by the system. - -Like in a {\tt Fixpoint} or {\tt CoFixpoint} definition, the induction -hypotheses have to be used on {\em structurally smaller} arguments -(for a {\tt Fixpoint}) or be {\em guarded by a constructor} (for a {\tt - CoFixpoint}). The verification that recursive proof arguments are -correct is done only at the time of registering the lemma in the -environment. To know if the use of induction hypotheses is correct at -some time of the interactive development of a proof, use the command -{\tt Guarded} (see Section~\ref{Guarded}). - -The command can be used also with {\tt Lemma}, -{\tt Remark}, etc. instead of {\tt Theorem}. - -\item {\tt Definition {\ident} \zeroone{\binders} : {\type}.} - -This allows defining a term of type {\type} using the proof editing mode. It -behaves as {\tt Theorem} but is intended to be used in conjunction with - {\tt Defined} (see \ref{Defined}) in order to define a - constant of which the computational behavior is relevant. - -The command can be used also with {\tt Example} instead -of {\tt Definition}. - -\SeeAlso Sections~\ref{Opaque} and~\ref{Transparent} ({\tt Opaque} -and {\tt Transparent}) and~\ref{unfold} (tactic {\tt unfold}). - -\item {\tt Let {\ident} \zeroone{\binders} : {\type}.} - -Like {\tt Definition {\ident} \zeroone{\binders} : {\type}.} except -that the definition is turned into a let-in definition generalized over -the declarations depending on it after closing the current section. - -\item {\tt Fixpoint \nelist{{\ident} {\binders} \zeroone{\annotation} {\typecstr} \zeroone{{\tt :=} {\term}}}{with}.} -\comindex{Fixpoint} - -This generalizes the syntax of {\tt Fixpoint} so that one or more -bodies can be defined interactively using the proof editing mode (when -a body is omitted, its type is mandatory in the syntax). When the -block of proofs is completed, it is intended to be ended by {\tt - Defined}. - -\item {\tt CoFixpoint \nelist{{\ident} \zeroone{\binders} {\typecstr} \zeroone{{\tt :=} {\term}}}{with}.} -\comindex{CoFixpoint} - -This generalizes the syntax of {\tt CoFixpoint} so that one or more bodies -can be defined interactively using the proof editing mode. - -\end{Variants} - -\subsubsection{{\tt Proof.} {\dots} {\tt Qed.} -\comindex{Proof} -\comindex{Qed}} - -A proof starts by the keyword {\tt Proof}. Then {\Coq} enters the -proof editing mode until the proof is completed. The proof editing -mode essentially contains tactics that are described in chapter -\ref{Tactics}. Besides tactics, there are commands to manage the proof -editing mode. They are described in Chapter~\ref{Proof-handling}. When -the proof is completed it should be validated and put in the -environment using the keyword {\tt Qed}. -\medskip - -\ErrMsg -\begin{enumerate} -\item \errindex{{\ident} already exists} -\end{enumerate} - -\begin{Remarks} -\item Several statements can be simultaneously asserted. -\item Not only other assertions but any vernacular command can be given -while in the process of proving a given assertion. In this case, the command is -understood as if it would have been given before the statements still to be -proved. -\item {\tt Proof} is recommended but can currently be omitted. On the -opposite side, {\tt Qed} (or {\tt Defined}, see below) is mandatory to -validate a proof. -\item Proofs ended by {\tt Qed} are declared opaque. Their content - cannot be unfolded (see \ref{Conversion-tactics}), thus realizing - some form of {\em proof-irrelevance}. To be able to unfold a proof, - the proof should be ended by {\tt Defined} (see below). -\end{Remarks} - -\begin{Variants} -\item \comindex{Defined} - {\tt Proof.} {\dots} {\tt Defined.}\\ - Same as {\tt Proof.} {\dots} {\tt Qed.} but the proof is - then declared transparent, which means that its - content can be explicitly used for type-checking and that it - can be unfolded in conversion tactics (see - \ref{Conversion-tactics}, \ref{Opaque}, \ref{Transparent}). -%Not claimed to be part of Gallina... -%\item {\tt Proof.} {\dots} {\tt Save.}\\ -% Same as {\tt Proof.} {\dots} {\tt Qed.} -%\item {\tt Goal} \type {\dots} {\tt Save} \ident \\ -% Same as {\tt Lemma} \ident {\tt :} \type \dots {\tt Save.} -% This is intended to be used in the interactive mode. -\item \comindex{Admitted} - {\tt Proof.} {\dots} {\tt Admitted.}\\ - Turns the current asserted statement into an axiom and exits the - proof mode. -\end{Variants} - -% Local Variables: -% mode: LaTeX -% TeX-master: "Reference-Manual" -% End: - diff --git a/doc/refman/RefMan-ltac.tex b/doc/refman/RefMan-ltac.tex deleted file mode 100644 index 3ed697d8be..0000000000 --- a/doc/refman/RefMan-ltac.tex +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1829 +0,0 @@ -\chapter[The tactic language]{The tactic language\label{TacticLanguage}} -%HEVEA\cutname{ltac.html} - -%\geometry{a4paper,body={5in,8in}} - -This chapter gives a compact documentation of Ltac, the tactic -language available in {\Coq}. We start by giving the syntax, and next, -we present the informal semantics. If you want to know more regarding -this language and especially about its foundations, you can refer -to~\cite{Del00}. Chapter~\ref{Tactics-examples} is devoted to giving -examples of use of this language on small but also with non-trivial -problems. - - -\section{Syntax} - -\def\tacexpr{\textrm{\textsl{expr}}} -\def\tacexprlow{\textrm{\textsl{tacexpr$_1$}}} -\def\tacexprinf{\textrm{\textsl{tacexpr$_2$}}} -\def\tacexprpref{\textrm{\textsl{tacexpr$_3$}}} -\def\atom{\textrm{\textsl{atom}}} -%%\def\recclause{\textrm{\textsl{rec\_clause}}} -\def\letclause{\textrm{\textsl{let\_clause}}} -\def\matchrule{\textrm{\textsl{match\_rule}}} -\def\contextrule{\textrm{\textsl{context\_rule}}} -\def\contexthyp{\textrm{\textsl{context\_hyp}}} -\def\tacarg{\nterm{tacarg}} -\def\cpattern{\nterm{cpattern}} -\def\selector{\textrm{\textsl{selector}}} -\def\toplevelselector{\textrm{\textsl{toplevel\_selector}}} - -The syntax of the tactic language is given Figures~\ref{ltac} -and~\ref{ltac-aux}. See Chapter~\ref{BNF-syntax} for a description of -the BNF metasyntax used in these grammar rules. Various already -defined entries will be used in this chapter: entries -{\naturalnumber}, {\integer}, {\ident}, {\qualid}, {\term}, -{\cpattern} and {\atomictac} represent respectively the natural and -integer numbers, the authorized identificators and qualified names, -{\Coq}'s terms and patterns and all the atomic tactics described in -Chapter~\ref{Tactics}. The syntax of {\cpattern} is the same as that -of terms, but it is extended with pattern matching metavariables. In -{\cpattern}, a pattern-matching metavariable is represented with the -syntax {\tt ?id} where {\tt id} is an {\ident}. The notation {\tt \_} -can also be used to denote metavariable whose instance is -irrelevant. In the notation {\tt ?id}, the identifier allows us to -keep instantiations and to make constraints whereas {\tt \_} shows -that we are not interested in what will be matched. On the right hand -side of pattern-matching clauses, the named metavariable are used -without the question mark prefix. There is also a special notation for -second-order pattern-matching problems: in an applicative pattern of -the form {\tt @?id id$_1$ \ldots id$_n$}, the variable {\tt id} -matches any complex expression with (possible) dependencies in the -variables {\tt id$_1$ \ldots id$_n$} and returns a functional term of -the form {\tt fun id$_1$ \ldots id$_n$ => {\term}}. - - -The main entry of the grammar is {\tacexpr}. This language is used in -proof mode but it can also be used in toplevel definitions as shown in -Figure~\ref{ltactop}. - -\begin{Remarks} -\item The infix tacticals ``\dots\ {\tt ||} \dots'', ``\dots\ {\tt +} - \dots'', and ``\dots\ {\tt ;} \dots'' are associative. - -\item In {\tacarg}, there is an overlap between {\qualid} as a -direct tactic argument and {\qualid} as a particular case of -{\term}. The resolution is done by first looking for a reference of -the tactic language and if it fails, for a reference to a term. To -force the resolution as a reference of the tactic language, use the -form {\tt ltac :} {\qualid}. To force the resolution as a reference to -a term, use the syntax {\tt ({\qualid})}. - -\item As shown by the figure, tactical {\tt ||} binds more than the -prefix tacticals {\tt try}, {\tt repeat}, {\tt do} and -{\tt abstract} which themselves bind more than the postfix tactical -``{\tt \dots\ ;[ \dots\ ]}'' which binds more than ``\dots\ {\tt ;} -\dots''. - -For instance -\begin{quote} -{\tt try repeat \tac$_1$ || - \tac$_2$;\tac$_3$;[\tac$_{31}$|\dots|\tac$_{3n}$];\tac$_4$.} -\end{quote} -is understood as -\begin{quote} -{\tt (try (repeat (\tac$_1$ || \tac$_2$)));} \\ -{\tt ((\tac$_3$;[\tac$_{31}$|\dots|\tac$_{3n}$]);\tac$_4$).} -\end{quote} -\end{Remarks} - - -\begin{figure}[htbp] -\begin{centerframe} -\begin{tabular}{lcl} -{\tacexpr} & ::= & - {\tacexpr} {\tt ;} {\tacexpr}\\ -& | & {\tt [>} \nelist{\tacexpr}{|} {\tt ]}\\ -& | & {\tacexpr} {\tt ; [} \nelist{\tacexpr}{|} {\tt ]}\\ -& | & {\tacexprpref}\\ -\\ -{\tacexprpref} & ::= & - {\tt do} {\it (}{\naturalnumber} {\it |} {\ident}{\it )} {\tacexprpref}\\ -& | & {\tt progress} {\tacexprpref}\\ -& | & {\tt repeat} {\tacexprpref}\\ -& | & {\tt try} {\tacexprpref}\\ -& | & {\tt once} {\tacexprpref}\\ -& | & {\tt exactly\_once} {\tacexprpref}\\ -& | & {\tt timeout} {\it (}{\naturalnumber} {\it |} {\ident}{\it )} {\tacexprpref}\\ -& | & {\tt time} \zeroone{\qstring} {\tacexprpref}\\ -& | & {\tt only} {\selector} {\tt :} {\tacexprpref}\\ -& | & {\tacexprinf} \\ -\\ -{\tacexprinf} & ::= & - {\tacexprlow} {\tt ||} {\tacexprpref}\\ -& | & {\tacexprlow} {\tt +} {\tacexprpref}\\ -& | & {\tt tryif} {\tacexprlow} {\tt then} {\tacexprlow} {\tt else} {\tacexprlow}\\ -& | & {\tacexprlow}\\ -\\ -{\tacexprlow} & ::= & -{\tt fun} \nelist{\name}{} {\tt =>} {\atom}\\ -& | & -{\tt let} \zeroone{\tt rec} \nelist{\letclause}{\tt with} {\tt in} -{\atom}\\ -& | & -{\tt match goal with} \nelist{\contextrule}{\tt |} {\tt end}\\ -& | & -{\tt match reverse goal with} \nelist{\contextrule}{\tt |} {\tt end}\\ -& | & -{\tt match} {\tacexpr} {\tt with} \nelist{\matchrule}{\tt |} {\tt end}\\ -& | & -{\tt lazymatch goal with} \nelist{\contextrule}{\tt |} {\tt end}\\ -& | & -{\tt lazymatch reverse goal with} \nelist{\contextrule}{\tt |} {\tt end}\\ -& | & -{\tt lazymatch} {\tacexpr} {\tt with} \nelist{\matchrule}{\tt |} {\tt end}\\ -& | & -{\tt multimatch goal with} \nelist{\contextrule}{\tt |} {\tt end}\\ -& | & -{\tt multimatch reverse goal with} \nelist{\contextrule}{\tt |} {\tt end}\\ -& | & -{\tt multimatch} {\tacexpr} {\tt with} \nelist{\matchrule}{\tt |} {\tt end}\\ -& | & {\tt abstract} {\atom}\\ -& | & {\tt abstract} {\atom} {\tt using} {\ident} \\ -& | & {\tt first [} \nelist{\tacexpr}{\tt |} {\tt ]}\\ -& | & {\tt solve [} \nelist{\tacexpr}{\tt |} {\tt ]}\\ -& | & {\tt idtac} \sequence{\messagetoken}{}\\ -& | & {\tt fail} \zeroone{\naturalnumber} \sequence{\messagetoken}{}\\ -& | & {\tt gfail} \zeroone{\naturalnumber} \sequence{\messagetoken}{}\\ -& | & {\tt fresh} ~|~ {\tt fresh} {\qstring}|~ {\tt fresh} {\qualid}\\ -& | & {\tt context} {\ident} {\tt [} {\term} {\tt ]}\\ -& | & {\tt eval} {\nterm{redexpr}} {\tt in} {\term}\\ -& | & {\tt type of} {\term}\\ -& | & {\tt external} {\qstring} {\qstring} \nelist{\tacarg}{}\\ -& | & {\tt constr :} {\term}\\ -& | & {\tt uconstr :} {\term}\\ -& | & {\tt type\_term} {\term}\\ -& | & {\tt numgoals} \\ -& | & {\tt guard} {\it test}\\ -& | & {\tt assert\_fails} {\tacexprpref}\\ -& | & {\tt assert\_succeds} {\tacexprpref}\\ -& | & \atomictac\\ -& | & {\qualid} \nelist{\tacarg}{}\\ -& | & {\atom} -\end{tabular} -\end{centerframe} -\caption{Syntax of the tactic language} -\label{ltac} -\end{figure} - - - -\begin{figure}[htbp] -\begin{centerframe} -\begin{tabular}{lcl} -{\atom} & ::= & - {\qualid} \\ -& | & ()\\ -& | & {\integer}\\ -& | & {\tt (} {\tacexpr} {\tt )}\\ -\\ -{\messagetoken}\!\!\!\!\!\! & ::= & {\qstring} ~|~ {\ident} ~|~ {\integer} \\ -\\ -\tacarg & ::= & - {\qualid}\\ -& $|$ & {\tt ()} \\ -& $|$ & {\tt ltac :} {\atom}\\ -& $|$ & {\term}\\ -\\ -\letclause & ::= & {\ident} \sequence{\name}{} {\tt :=} {\tacexpr}\\ -\\ -\contextrule & ::= & - \nelist{\contexthyp}{\tt ,} {\tt |-}{\cpattern} {\tt =>} {\tacexpr}\\ -& $|$ & {\tt |-} {\cpattern} {\tt =>} {\tacexpr}\\ -& $|$ & {\tt \_ =>} {\tacexpr}\\ -\\ -\contexthyp & ::= & {\name} {\tt :} {\cpattern}\\ - & $|$ & {\name} {\tt :=} {\cpattern} \zeroone{{\tt :} {\cpattern}}\\ -\\ -\matchrule & ::= & - {\cpattern} {\tt =>} {\tacexpr}\\ -& $|$ & {\tt context} {\zeroone{\ident}} {\tt [} {\cpattern} {\tt ]} - {\tt =>} {\tacexpr}\\ -& $|$ & {\tt \_ =>} {\tacexpr}\\ -\\ -{\it test} & ::= & - {\integer} {\tt \,=\,} {\integer}\\ -& $|$ & {\integer} {\tt \,<\,} {\integer}\\ -& $|$ & {\integer} {\tt <=} {\integer}\\ -& $|$ & {\integer} {\tt \,>\,} {\integer}\\ -& $|$ & {\integer} {\tt >=} {\integer}\\ -\\ -\selector & ::= & - [{\ident}]\\ -& $|$ & {\integer}\\ -& $|$ & \nelist{{\it (}{\integer} {\it |} {\integer} {\tt -} {\integer}{\it )}} - {\tt ,}\\ -\\ -\toplevelselector & ::= & - \selector\\ -& $|$ & {\tt all}\\ -& $|$ & {\tt par} -\end{tabular} -\end{centerframe} -\caption{Syntax of the tactic language (continued)} -\label{ltac-aux} -\end{figure} - -\begin{figure}[ht] -\begin{centerframe} -\begin{tabular}{lcl} -\nterm{top} & ::= & \zeroone{\tt Local} {\tt Ltac} \nelist{\nterm{ltac\_def}} {\tt with} \\ -\\ -\nterm{ltac\_def} & ::= & {\ident} \sequence{\ident}{} {\tt :=} -{\tacexpr}\\ -& $|$ &{\qualid} \sequence{\ident}{} {\tt ::=}{\tacexpr} -\end{tabular} -\end{centerframe} -\caption{Tactic toplevel definitions} -\label{ltactop} -\end{figure} - - -%% -%% Semantics -%% -\section{Semantics} -%\index[tactic]{Tacticals} -\index{Tacticals} -%\label{Tacticals} - -Tactic expressions can only be applied in the context of a proof. The -evaluation yields either a term, an integer or a tactic. Intermediary -results can be terms or integers but the final result must be a tactic -which is then applied to the focused goals. - -There is a special case for {\tt match goal} expressions of which -the clauses evaluate to tactics. Such expressions can only be used as -end result of a tactic expression (never as argument of a non recursive local -definition or of an application). - -The rest of this section explains the semantics of every construction -of Ltac. - - -%% \subsection{Values} - -%% Values are given by Figure~\ref{ltacval}. All these values are tactic values, -%% i.e. to be applied to a goal, except {\tt Fun}, {\tt Rec} and $arg$ values. - -%% \begin{figure}[ht] -%% \noindent{}\framebox[6in][l] -%% {\parbox{6in} -%% {\begin{center} -%% \begin{tabular}{lp{0.1in}l} -%% $vexpr$ & ::= & $vexpr$ {\tt ;} $vexpr$\\ -%% & | & $vexpr$ {\tt ; [} {\it (}$vexpr$ {\tt |}{\it )}$^*$ $vexpr$ {\tt -%% ]}\\ -%% & | & $vatom$\\ -%% \\ -%% $vatom$ & ::= & {\tt Fun} \nelist{\inputfun}{} {\tt ->} {\tacexpr}\\ -%% %& | & {\tt Rec} \recclause\\ -%% & | & -%% {\tt Rec} \nelist{\recclause}{\tt And} {\tt In} -%% {\tacexpr}\\ -%% & | & -%% {\tt Match Context With} {\it (}$context\_rule$ {\tt |}{\it )}$^*$ -%% $context\_rule$\\ -%% & | & {\tt (} $vexpr$ {\tt )}\\ -%% & | & $vatom$ {\tt Orelse} $vatom$\\ -%% & | & {\tt Do} {\it (}{\naturalnumber} {\it |} {\ident}{\it )} $vatom$\\ -%% & | & {\tt Repeat} $vatom$\\ -%% & | & {\tt Try} $vatom$\\ -%% & | & {\tt First [} {\it (}$vexpr$ {\tt |}{\it )}$^*$ $vexpr$ {\tt ]}\\ -%% & | & {\tt Solve [} {\it (}$vexpr$ {\tt |}{\it )}$^*$ $vexpr$ {\tt ]}\\ -%% & | & {\tt Idtac}\\ -%% & | & {\tt Fail}\\ -%% & | & {\primitivetactic}\\ -%% & | & $arg$ -%% \end{tabular} -%% \end{center}}} -%% \caption{Values of ${\cal L}_{tac}$} -%% \label{ltacval} -%% \end{figure} - -%% \subsection{Evaluation} - -\subsubsection[Sequence]{Sequence\tacindex{;} -\index{Tacticals!;@{\tt {\tac$_1$};\tac$_2$}}} - -A sequence is an expression of the following form: -\begin{quote} -{\tacexpr}$_1$ {\tt ;} {\tacexpr}$_2$ -\end{quote} -The expression {\tacexpr}$_1$ is evaluated to $v_1$, which must be -a tactic value. The tactic $v_1$ is applied to the current goal, -possibly producing more goals. Then {\tacexpr}$_2$ is evaluated to -produce $v_2$, which must be a tactic value. The tactic $v_2$ is applied to -all the goals produced by the prior application. Sequence is associative. - -\subsubsection[Local application of tactics]{Local application of tactics\tacindex{[>\ldots$\mid$\ldots$\mid$\ldots]}\tacindex{;[\ldots$\mid$\ldots$\mid$\ldots]}\index{Tacticals![> \mid ]@{\tt {\tac$_0$};[{\tac$_1$}$\mid$\ldots$\mid$\tac$_n$]}}\index{Tacticals!; [ \mid ]@{\tt {\tac$_0$};[{\tac$_1$}$\mid$\ldots$\mid$\tac$_n$]}}} -%\tacindex{; [ | ]} -%\index{; [ | ]@{\tt ;[\ldots$\mid$\ldots$\mid$\ldots]}} - -Different tactics can be applied to the different goals using the following form: -\begin{quote} -{\tt [ >} {\tacexpr}$_1$ {\tt |} $...$ {\tt |} {\tacexpr}$_n$ {\tt ]} -\end{quote} -The expressions {\tacexpr}$_i$ are evaluated to $v_i$, for $i=0,...,n$ -and all have to be tactics. The $v_i$ is applied to the $i$-th goal, -for $=1,...,n$. It fails if the number of focused goals is not exactly $n$. - -\begin{Variants} - \item If no tactic is given for the $i$-th goal, it behaves as if - the tactic {\tt idtac} were given. For instance, {\tt [~> | auto - ]} is a shortcut for {\tt [ > idtac | auto ]}. - - \item {\tt [ >} {\tacexpr}$_1$ {\tt |} $...$ {\tt |} - {\tacexpr}$_i$ {\tt |} {\tacexpr} {\tt ..} {\tt |} - {\tacexpr}$_{i+1+j}$ {\tt |} $...$ {\tt |} {\tacexpr}$_n$ {\tt ]} - - In this variant, {\tt expr} is used for each goal numbered from - $i+1$ to $i+j$ (assuming $n$ is the number of goals). - - Note that {\tt ..} is part of the syntax, while $...$ is the meta-symbol used - to describe a list of {\tacexpr} of arbitrary length. - goals numbered from $i+1$ to $i+j$. - - \item {\tt [ >} {\tacexpr}$_1$ {\tt |} $...$ {\tt |} - {\tacexpr}$_i$ {\tt |} {\tt ..} {\tt |} {\tacexpr}$_{i+1+j}$ {\tt |} - $...$ {\tt |} {\tacexpr}$_n$ {\tt ]} - - In this variant, {\tt idtac} is used for the goals numbered from - $i+1$ to $i+j$. - - \item {\tt [ >} {\tacexpr} {\tt ..} {\tt ]} - - In this variant, the tactic {\tacexpr} is applied independently to - each of the goals, rather than globally. In particular, if there - are no goal, the tactic is not run at all. A tactic which - expects multiple goals, such as {\tt swap}, would act as if a single - goal is focused. - - \item {\tacexpr} {\tt ; [ } {\tacexpr}$_1$ {\tt |} $...$ {\tt |} {\tacexpr}$_n$ {\tt ]} - - This variant of local tactic application is paired with a - sequence. In this variant, $n$ must be the number of goals - generated by the application of {\tacexpr} to each of the - individual goals independently. All the above variants work in - this form too. Formally, {\tacexpr} {\tt ; [} $...$ {\tt ]} is - equivalent to - \begin{quote} - {\tt [ >} {\tacexpr} {\tt ; [ >} $...$ {\tt ]} {\tt ..} {\tt ]} - \end{quote} - -\end{Variants} - -\subsubsection[Goal selectors]{Goal selectors\label{ltac:selector} -\tacindex{\tt :}\index{Tacticals!:@{\tt :}}} - -We can restrict the application of a tactic to a subset of -the currently focused goals with: -\begin{quote} - {\toplevelselector} {\tt :} {\tacexpr} -\end{quote} -We can also use selectors as a tactical, which allows to use them nested in -a tactic expression, by using the keyword {\tt only}: -\begin{quote} - {\tt only} {\selector} {\tt :} {\tacexpr} -\end{quote} -When selecting several goals, the tactic {\tacexpr} is applied globally to -all selected goals. - -\begin{Variants} - \item{} [{\ident}] {\tt :} {\tacexpr} - - In this variant, {\tacexpr} is applied locally to a goal - previously named by the user (see~\ref{ExistentialVariables}). - - \item {\num} {\tt :} {\tacexpr} - - In this variant, {\tacexpr} is applied locally to the - {\num}-th goal. - - \item $n_1$-$m_1$, \dots, $n_k$-$m_k$ {\tt :} {\tacexpr} - - In this variant, {\tacexpr} is applied globally to the subset - of goals described by the given ranges. You can write a single - $n$ as a shortcut for $n$-$n$ when specifying multiple ranges. - - \item {\tt all:} {\tacexpr} - - In this variant, {\tacexpr} is applied to all focused goals. - {\tt all:} can only be used at the toplevel of a tactic expression. - - \item {\tt par:} {\tacexpr} - - In this variant, {\tacexpr} is applied to all focused goals - in parallel. The number of workers can be controlled via the - command line option {\tt -async-proofs-tac-j} taking as argument - the desired number of workers. Limitations: {\tt par: } only works - on goals containing no existential variables and {\tacexpr} must - either solve the goal completely or do nothing (i.e. it cannot make - some progress). - {\tt par:} can only be used at the toplevel of a tactic expression. - -\end{Variants} - -\ErrMsg \errindex{No such goal} - -\subsubsection[For loop]{For loop\tacindex{do} -\index{Tacticals!do@{\tt do}}} - -There is a for loop that repeats a tactic {\num} times: -\begin{quote} -{\tt do} {\num} {\tacexpr} -\end{quote} -{\tacexpr} is evaluated to $v$ which must be a tactic value. -This tactic value $v$ is -applied {\num} times. Supposing ${\num}>1$, after the first -application of $v$, $v$ is applied, at least once, to the generated -subgoals and so on. It fails if the application of $v$ fails before -the {\num} applications have been completed. - -\subsubsection[Repeat loop]{Repeat loop\tacindex{repeat} -\index{Tacticals!repeat@{\tt repeat}}} - -We have a repeat loop with: -\begin{quote} -{\tt repeat} {\tacexpr} -\end{quote} -{\tacexpr} is evaluated to $v$. If $v$ denotes a tactic, this tactic -is applied to each focused goal independently. If the application -succeeds, the tactic is applied recursively to all the generated subgoals -until it eventually fails. The recursion stops in a subgoal when the -tactic has failed \emph{to make progress}. The tactic {\tt repeat - {\tacexpr}} itself never fails. - -\subsubsection[Error catching]{Error catching\tacindex{try} -\index{Tacticals!try@{\tt try}}} - -We can catch the tactic errors with: -\begin{quote} -{\tt try} {\tacexpr} -\end{quote} -{\tacexpr} is evaluated to $v$ which must be a tactic value. -The tactic value $v$ is -applied to each focused goal independently. If the application of $v$ -fails in a goal, it catches the error and leaves the goal -unchanged. If the level of the exception is positive, then the -exception is re-raised with its level decremented. - -\subsubsection[Detecting progress]{Detecting progress\tacindex{progress}} - -We can check if a tactic made progress with: -\begin{quote} -{\tt progress} {\tacexpr} -\end{quote} -{\tacexpr} is evaluated to $v$ which must be a tactic value. -The tactic value $v$ is -applied to each focued subgoal independently. If the application of -$v$ to one of the focused subgoal produced subgoals equal to the -initial goals (up to syntactical equality), then an error of level 0 -is raised. - -\ErrMsg \errindex{Failed to progress} - -\subsubsection[Backtracking branching]{Backtracking branching\tacindex{$+$} -\index{Tacticals!or@{\tt $+$}}} - -We can branch with the following structure: -\begin{quote} -{\tacexpr}$_1$ {\tt +} {\tacexpr}$_2$ -\end{quote} -{\tacexpr}$_1$ and {\tacexpr}$_2$ are evaluated to $v_1$ and -$v_2$ which must be tactic values. The tactic value $v_1$ is applied to each -focused goal independently and if it fails or a later tactic fails, -then the proof backtracks to the current goal and $v_2$ is applied. - -Tactics can be seen as having several successes. When a tactic fails -it asks for more successes of the prior tactics. {\tacexpr}$_1$ {\tt - +} {\tacexpr}$_2$ has all the successes of $v_1$ followed by all the -successes of $v_2$. Algebraically, ({\tacexpr}$_1$ {\tt +} -{\tacexpr}$_2$);{\tacexpr}$_3$ $=$ ({\tacexpr}$_1$;{\tacexpr}$_3$) -{\tt +} ({\tacexpr}$_2$;{\tacexpr}$_3$). - -Branching is left-associative. - -\subsubsection[First tactic to work]{First tactic to work\tacindex{first} -\index{Tacticals!first@{\tt first}}} - -Backtracking branching may be too expensive. In this case we may -restrict to a local, left biased, branching and consider the first -tactic to work (i.e. which does not fail) among a panel of tactics: -\begin{quote} -{\tt first [} {\tacexpr}$_1$ {\tt |} $...$ {\tt |} {\tacexpr}$_n$ {\tt ]} -\end{quote} -{\tacexpr}$_i$ are evaluated to $v_i$ and $v_i$ must be tactic values, -for $i=1,...,n$. Supposing $n>1$, it applies, in each focused goal -independently, $v_1$, if it works, it stops otherwise it tries to -apply $v_2$ and so on. It fails when there is no applicable tactic. In -other words, {\tt first [} {\tacexpr}$_1$ {\tt |} $...$ {\tt |} - {\tacexpr}$_n$ {\tt ]} behaves, in each goal, as the the first $v_i$ -to have \emph{at least} one success. - -\ErrMsg \errindex{No applicable tactic} - -\variant {\tt first {\tacexpr}} - -This is an Ltac alias that gives a primitive access to the {\tt first} tactical -as a Ltac definition without going through a parsing rule. It expects to be -given a list of tactics through a {\tt Tactic Notation}, allowing to write -notations of the following form. - -\Example - -\begin{quote} -{\tt Tactic Notation "{foo}" tactic\_list(tacs) := first tacs.} -\end{quote} - -\subsubsection[Left-biased branching]{Left-biased branching\tacindex{$\mid\mid$} -\index{Tacticals!orelse@{\tt $\mid\mid$}}} - -Yet another way of branching without backtracking is the following structure: -\begin{quote} -{\tacexpr}$_1$ {\tt ||} {\tacexpr}$_2$ -\end{quote} -{\tacexpr}$_1$ and {\tacexpr}$_2$ are evaluated to $v_1$ and -$v_2$ which must be tactic values. The tactic value $v_1$ is applied in each -subgoal independently and if it fails \emph{to progress} then $v_2$ is -applied. {\tacexpr}$_1$ {\tt ||} {\tacexpr}$_2$ is equivalent to {\tt - first [} {\tt progress} {\tacexpr}$_1$ {\tt |} - {\tacexpr}$_2$ {\tt ]} (except that if it fails, it fails like -$v_2$). Branching is left-associative. - -\subsubsection[Generalized biased branching]{Generalized biased branching\tacindex{tryif} -\index{Tacticals!tryif@{\tt tryif}}} - -The tactic -\begin{quote} -{\tt tryif {\tacexpr}$_1$ then {\tacexpr}$_2$ else {\tacexpr}$_3$} -\end{quote} -is a generalization of the biased-branching tactics above. The -expression {\tacexpr}$_1$ is evaluated to $v_1$, which is then applied -to each subgoal independently. For each goal where $v_1$ succeeds at -least once, {\tacexpr}$_2$ is evaluated to $v_2$ which is then applied -collectively to the generated subgoals. The $v_2$ tactic can trigger -backtracking points in $v_1$: where $v_1$ succeeds at least once, {\tt - tryif {\tacexpr}$_1$ then {\tacexpr}$_2$ else {\tacexpr}$_3$} is -equivalent to $v_1;v_2$. In each of the goals where $v_1$ does not -succeed at least once, {\tacexpr}$_3$ is evaluated in $v_3$ which is -is then applied to the goal. - -\subsubsection[Soft cut]{Soft cut\tacindex{once}\index{Tacticals!once@{\tt once}}} - -Another way of restricting backtracking is to restrict a tactic to a -single success \emph{a posteriori}: -\begin{quote} -{\tt once} {\tacexpr} -\end{quote} -{\tacexpr} is evaluated to $v$ which must be a tactic value. -The tactic value $v$ is -applied but only its first success is used. If $v$ fails, {\tt once} -{\tacexpr} fails like $v$. If $v$ has a least one success, {\tt once} -{\tacexpr} succeeds once, but cannot produce more successes. - -\subsubsection[Checking the successes]{Checking the successes\tacindex{exactly\_once}\index{Tacticals!exactly\_once@{\tt exactly\_once}}} - -Coq provides an experimental way to check that a tactic has \emph{exactly one} success: -\begin{quote} -{\tt exactly\_once} {\tacexpr} -\end{quote} -{\tacexpr} is evaluated to $v$ which must be a tactic value. -The tactic value $v$ is -applied if it has at most one success. If $v$ fails, {\tt - exactly\_once} {\tacexpr} fails like $v$. If $v$ has a exactly one -success, {\tt exactly\_once} {\tacexpr} succeeds like $v$. If $v$ has -two or more successes, {\tt exactly\_once} {\tacexpr} fails. - -The experimental status of this tactic pertains to the fact if $v$ performs side effects, they may occur in a unpredictable way. Indeed, normally $v$ would only be executed up to the first success until backtracking is needed, however {\tt exactly\_once} needs to look ahead to see whether a second success exists, and may run further effects immediately. - -\ErrMsg \errindex{This tactic has more than one success} - -\subsubsection[Checking the failure]{Checking the failure\tacindex{assert\_fails}\index{Tacticals!assert\_fails@{\tt assert\_fails}}} - -Coq provides a derived tactic to check that a tactic \emph{fails}: -\begin{quote} -{\tt assert\_fails} {\tacexpr} -\end{quote} -This behaves like {\tt tryif {\tacexpr} then fail 0 tac "succeeds" else idtac}. - -\subsubsection[Checking the success]{Checking the success\tacindex{assert\_succeeds}\index{Tacticals!assert\_succeeds@{\tt assert\_succeeds}}} - -Coq provides a derived tactic to check that a tactic has \emph{at least one} success: -\begin{quote} -{\tt assert\_succeeds} {\tacexpr} -\end{quote} -This behaves like {\tt tryif (assert\_fails tac) then fail 0 tac "fails" else idtac}. - -\subsubsection[Solving]{Solving\tacindex{solve} -\index{Tacticals!solve@{\tt solve}}} - -We may consider the first to solve (i.e. which generates no subgoal) among a -panel of tactics: -\begin{quote} -{\tt solve [} {\tacexpr}$_1$ {\tt |} $...$ {\tt |} {\tacexpr}$_n$ {\tt ]} -\end{quote} -{\tacexpr}$_i$ are evaluated to $v_i$ and $v_i$ must be tactic values, -for $i=1,...,n$. Supposing $n>1$, it applies $v_1$ to each goal -independently, if it doesn't solve the goal then it tries to apply -$v_2$ and so on. It fails if there is no solving tactic. - -\ErrMsg \errindex{Cannot solve the goal} - -\variant {\tt solve {\tacexpr}} - -This is an Ltac alias that gives a primitive access to the {\tt solve} tactical. -See the {\tt first} tactical for more information. - -\subsubsection[Identity]{Identity\label{ltac:idtac}\tacindex{idtac} -\index{Tacticals!idtac@{\tt idtac}}} - -The constant {\tt idtac} is the identity tactic: it leaves any goal -unchanged but it appears in the proof script. - -\variant {\tt idtac \nelist{\messagetoken}{}} - -This prints the given tokens. Strings and integers are printed -literally. If a (term) variable is given, its contents are printed. - - -\subsubsection[Failing]{Failing\tacindex{fail} -\index{Tacticals!fail@{\tt fail}} -\tacindex{gfail}\index{Tacticals!gfail@{\tt gfail}}} - -The tactic {\tt fail} is the always-failing tactic: it does not solve -any goal. It is useful for defining other tacticals since it can be -caught by {\tt try}, {\tt repeat}, {\tt match goal}, or the branching -tacticals. The {\tt fail} tactic will, however, succeed if all the -goals have already been solved. - -\begin{Variants} -\item {\tt fail $n$}\\ The number $n$ is the failure level. If no - level is specified, it defaults to $0$. The level is used by {\tt - try}, {\tt repeat}, {\tt match goal} and the branching tacticals. - If $0$, it makes {\tt match goal} considering the next clause - (backtracking). If non zero, the current {\tt match goal} block, - {\tt try}, {\tt repeat}, or branching command is aborted and the - level is decremented. In the case of {\tt +}, a non-zero level skips - the first backtrack point, even if the call to {\tt fail $n$} is not - enclosed in a {\tt +} command, respecting the algebraic identity. - -\item {\tt fail \nelist{\messagetoken}{}}\\ -The given tokens are used for printing the failure message. - -\item {\tt fail $n$ \nelist{\messagetoken}{}}\\ -This is a combination of the previous variants. - -\item {\tt gfail}\\ -This variant fails even if there are no goals left. - -\item {\tt gfail \nelist{\messagetoken}{}}\\ -{\tt gfail $n$ \nelist{\messagetoken}{}}\\ -These variants fail with an error message or an error level even if -there are no goals left. Be careful however if Coq terms have to be -printed as part of the failure: term construction always forces the -tactic into the goals, meaning that if there are no goals when it is -evaluated, a tactic call like {\tt let x:=H in fail 0 x} will succeed. - -\end{Variants} - -\ErrMsg \errindex{Tactic Failure {\it message} (level $n$)}. - -\subsubsection[Timeout]{Timeout\tacindex{timeout} -\index{Tacticals!timeout@{\tt timeout}}} - -We can force a tactic to stop if it has not finished after a certain -amount of time: -\begin{quote} -{\tt timeout} {\num} {\tacexpr} -\end{quote} -{\tacexpr} is evaluated to $v$ which must be a tactic value. -The tactic value $v$ is -applied normally, except that it is interrupted after ${\num}$ seconds -if it is still running. In this case the outcome is a failure. - -Warning: For the moment, {\tt timeout} is based on elapsed time in -seconds, which is very -machine-dependent: a script that works on a quick machine may fail -on a slow one. The converse is even possible if you combine a -{\tt timeout} with some other tacticals. This tactical is hence -proposed only for convenience during debug or other development -phases, we strongly advise you to not leave any {\tt timeout} in -final scripts. Note also that this tactical isn't available on -the native Windows port of Coq. - -\subsubsection{Timing a tactic\tacindex{time} -\index{Tacticals!time@{\tt time}}} - -A tactic execution can be timed: -\begin{quote} - {\tt time} {\qstring} {\tacexpr} -\end{quote} -evaluates {\tacexpr} -and displays the time the tactic expression ran, whether it fails or -successes. In case of several successes, the time for each successive -runs is displayed. Time is in seconds and is machine-dependent. The -{\qstring} argument is optional. When provided, it is used to identify -this particular occurrence of {\tt time}. - -\subsubsection{Timing a tactic that evaluates to a term\tacindex{time\_constr}\tacindex{restart\_timer}\tacindex{finish\_timing} -\index{Tacticals!time\_constr@{\tt time\_constr}}} -\index{Tacticals!restart\_timer@{\tt restart\_timer}} -\index{Tacticals!finish\_timing@{\tt finish\_timing}} - -Tactic expressions that produce terms can be timed with the experimental tactic -\begin{quote} - {\tt time\_constr} {\tacexpr} -\end{quote} -which evaluates {\tacexpr\tt{ ()}} -and displays the time the tactic expression evaluated, assuming successful evaluation. -Time is in seconds and is machine-dependent. - -This tactic currently does not support nesting, and will report times based on the innermost execution. -This is due to the fact that it is implemented using the tactics -\begin{quote} - {\tt restart\_timer} {\qstring} -\end{quote} -and -\begin{quote} - {\tt finish\_timing} ({\qstring}) {\qstring} -\end{quote} -which (re)set and display an optionally named timer, respectively. -The parenthesized {\qstring} argument to {\tt finish\_timing} is also -optional, and determines the label associated with the timer for -printing. - -By copying the definition of {\tt time\_constr} from the standard -library, users can achive support for a fixed pattern of nesting by -passing different {\qstring} parameters to {\tt restart\_timer} and -{\tt finish\_timing} at each level of nesting. For example: - -\begin{coq_example} -Ltac time_constr1 tac := - let eval_early := match goal with _ => restart_timer "(depth 1)" end in - let ret := tac () in - let eval_early := match goal with _ => finish_timing ( "Tactic evaluation" ) "(depth 1)" end in - ret. - -Goal True. - let v := time_constr - ltac:(fun _ => - let x := time_constr1 ltac:(fun _ => constr:(10 * 10)) in - let y := time_constr1 ltac:(fun _ => eval compute in x) in - y) in - pose v. -Abort. -\end{coq_example} - -\subsubsection[Local definitions]{Local definitions\index{Ltac!let@\texttt{let}} -\index{Ltac!let rec@\texttt{let rec}} -\index{let@\texttt{let}!in Ltac} -\index{let rec@\texttt{let rec}!in Ltac}} - -Local definitions can be done as follows: -\begin{quote} -{\tt let} {\ident}$_1$ {\tt :=} {\tacexpr}$_1$\\ -{\tt with} {\ident}$_2$ {\tt :=} {\tacexpr}$_2$\\ -...\\ -{\tt with} {\ident}$_n$ {\tt :=} {\tacexpr}$_n$ {\tt in}\\ -{\tacexpr} -\end{quote} -each {\tacexpr}$_i$ is evaluated to $v_i$, then, {\tacexpr} is -evaluated by substituting $v_i$ to each occurrence of {\ident}$_i$, -for $i=1,...,n$. There is no dependencies between the {\tacexpr}$_i$ -and the {\ident}$_i$. - -Local definitions can be recursive by using {\tt let rec} instead of -{\tt let}. In this latter case, the definitions are evaluated lazily -so that the {\tt rec} keyword can be used also in non recursive cases -so as to avoid the eager evaluation of local definitions. - -\subsubsection{Application} - -An application is an expression of the following form: -\begin{quote} -{\qualid} {\tacarg}$_1$ ... {\tacarg}$_n$ -\end{quote} -The reference {\qualid} must be bound to some defined tactic -definition expecting at least $n$ arguments. The expressions -{\tacexpr}$_i$ are evaluated to $v_i$, for $i=1,...,n$. -%If {\tacexpr} is a {\tt Fun} or {\tt Rec} value then the body is evaluated by -%substituting $v_i$ to the formal parameters, for $i=1,...,n$. For recursive -%clauses, the bodies are lazily substituted (when an identifier to be evaluated -%is the name of a recursive clause). - -%\subsection{Application of tactic values} - -\subsubsection[Function construction]{Function construction\index{fun@\texttt{fun}!in Ltac} -\index{Ltac!fun@\texttt{fun}}} - -A parameterized tactic can be built anonymously (without resorting to -local definitions) with: -\begin{quote} -{\tt fun} {\ident${}_1$} ... {\ident${}_n$} {\tt =>} {\tacexpr} -\end{quote} -Indeed, local definitions of functions are a syntactic sugar for -binding a {\tt fun} tactic to an identifier. - -\subsubsection[Pattern matching on terms]{Pattern matching on terms\index{Ltac!match@\texttt{match}} -\index{match@\texttt{match}!in Ltac}} - -We can carry out pattern matching on terms with: -\begin{quote} -{\tt match} {\tacexpr} {\tt with}\\ -~~~{\cpattern}$_1$ {\tt =>} {\tacexpr}$_1$\\ -~{\tt |} {\cpattern}$_2$ {\tt =>} {\tacexpr}$_2$\\ -~...\\ -~{\tt |} {\cpattern}$_n$ {\tt =>} {\tacexpr}$_n$\\ -~{\tt |} {\tt \_} {\tt =>} {\tacexpr}$_{n+1}$\\ -{\tt end} -\end{quote} -The expression {\tacexpr} is evaluated and should yield a term which -is matched against {\cpattern}$_1$. The matching is non-linear: if a -metavariable occurs more than once, it should match the same -expression every time. It is first-order except on the -variables of the form {\tt @?id} that occur in head position of an -application. For these variables, the matching is second-order and -returns a functional term. - -Alternatively, when a metavariable of the form {\tt ?id} occurs under -binders, say $x_1$, \ldots, $x_n$ and the expression matches, the -metavariable is instantiated by a term which can then be used in any -context which also binds the variables $x_1$, \ldots, $x_n$ with -same types. This provides with a primitive form of matching -under context which does not require manipulating a functional term. - -If the matching with {\cpattern}$_1$ succeeds, then {\tacexpr}$_1$ is -evaluated into some value by substituting the pattern matching -instantiations to the metavariables. If {\tacexpr}$_1$ evaluates to a -tactic and the {\tt match} expression is in position to be applied to -a goal (e.g. it is not bound to a variable by a {\tt let in}), then -this tactic is applied. If the tactic succeeds, the list of resulting -subgoals is the result of the {\tt match} expression. If -{\tacexpr}$_1$ does not evaluate to a tactic or if the {\tt match} -expression is not in position to be applied to a goal, then the result -of the evaluation of {\tacexpr}$_1$ is the result of the {\tt match} -expression. - -If the matching with {\cpattern}$_1$ fails, or if it succeeds but the -evaluation of {\tacexpr}$_1$ fails, or if the evaluation of -{\tacexpr}$_1$ succeeds but returns a tactic in execution position -whose execution fails, then {\cpattern}$_2$ is used and so on. The -pattern {\_} matches any term and shunts all remaining patterns if -any. If all clauses fail (in particular, there is no pattern {\_}) -then a no-matching-clause error is raised. - -Failures in subsequent tactics do not cause backtracking to select new -branches or inside the right-hand side of the selected branch even if -it has backtracking points. - -\begin{ErrMsgs} - -\item \errindex{No matching clauses for match} - - No pattern can be used and, in particular, there is no {\tt \_} pattern. - -\item \errindex{Argument of match does not evaluate to a term} - - This happens when {\tacexpr} does not denote a term. - -\end{ErrMsgs} - -\begin{Variants} - -\item \index{multimatch@\texttt{multimatch}!in Ltac} -\index{Ltac!multimatch@\texttt{multimatch}} -Using {\tt multimatch} instead of {\tt match} will allow subsequent -tactics to backtrack into a right-hand side tactic which has -backtracking points left and trigger the selection of a new matching -branch when all the backtracking points of the right-hand side have -been consumed. - -The syntax {\tt match \ldots} is, in fact, a shorthand for -{\tt once multimatch \ldots}. - -\item \index{lazymatch@\texttt{lazymatch}!in Ltac} -\index{Ltac!lazymatch@\texttt{lazymatch}} -Using {\tt lazymatch} instead of {\tt match} will perform the same -pattern matching procedure but will commit to the first matching -branch rather than trying a new matching if the right-hand side -fails. If the right-hand side of the selected branch is a tactic with -backtracking points, then subsequent failures cause this tactic to -backtrack. - -\item \index{context@\texttt{context}!in pattern} -There is a special form of patterns to match a subterm against the -pattern: -\begin{quote} -{\tt context} {\ident} {\tt [} {\cpattern} {\tt ]} -\end{quote} -It matches any term with a subterm matching {\cpattern}. If there is -a match, the optional {\ident} is assigned the ``matched context'', i.e. -the initial term where the matched subterm is replaced by a -hole. The example below will show how to use such term contexts. - -If the evaluation of the right-hand-side of a valid match fails, the -next matching subterm is tried. If no further subterm matches, the -next clause is tried. Matching subterms are considered top-bottom and -from left to right (with respect to the raw printing obtained by -setting option {\tt Printing All}, see Section~\ref{SetPrintingAll}). - -\begin{coq_example} -Ltac f x := - match x with - context f [S ?X] => - idtac X; (* To display the evaluation order *) - assert (p := eq_refl 1 : X=1); (* To filter the case X=1 *) - let x:= context f[O] in assert (x=O) (* To observe the context *) - end. -Goal True. -f (3+4). -\end{coq_example} - -\end{Variants} - -\subsubsection[Pattern matching on goals]{Pattern matching on goals\index{Ltac!match goal@\texttt{match goal}}\label{ltac-match-goal} -\index{Ltac!match reverse goal@\texttt{match reverse goal}} -\index{match goal@\texttt{match goal}!in Ltac} -\index{match reverse goal@\texttt{match reverse goal}!in Ltac}} - -We can make pattern matching on goals using the following expression: -\begin{quote} -\begin{tabbing} -{\tt match goal with}\\ -~~\={\tt |} $hyp_{1,1}${\tt ,}...{\tt ,}$hyp_{1,m_1}$ - ~~{\tt |-}{\cpattern}$_1${\tt =>} {\tacexpr}$_1$\\ - \>{\tt |} $hyp_{2,1}${\tt ,}...{\tt ,}$hyp_{2,m_2}$ - ~~{\tt |-}{\cpattern}$_2${\tt =>} {\tacexpr}$_2$\\ -~~...\\ - \>{\tt |} $hyp_{n,1}${\tt ,}...{\tt ,}$hyp_{n,m_n}$ - ~~{\tt |-}{\cpattern}$_n${\tt =>} {\tacexpr}$_n$\\ - \>{\tt |\_}~~~~{\tt =>} {\tacexpr}$_{n+1}$\\ -{\tt end} -\end{tabbing} -\end{quote} - -If each hypothesis pattern $hyp_{1,i}$, with $i=1,...,m_1$ -is matched (non-linear first-order unification) by an hypothesis of -the goal and if {\cpattern}$_1$ is matched by the conclusion of the -goal, then {\tacexpr}$_1$ is evaluated to $v_1$ by substituting the -pattern matching to the metavariables and the real hypothesis names -bound to the possible hypothesis names occurring in the hypothesis -patterns. If $v_1$ is a tactic value, then it is applied to the -goal. If this application fails, then another combination of -hypotheses is tried with the same proof context pattern. If there is -no other combination of hypotheses then the second proof context -pattern is tried and so on. If the next to last proof context pattern -fails then {\tacexpr}$_{n+1}$ is evaluated to $v_{n+1}$ and $v_{n+1}$ -is applied. Note also that matching against subterms (using the {\tt -context} {\ident} {\tt [} {\cpattern} {\tt ]}) is available and is -also subject to yielding several matchings. - -Failures in subsequent tactics do not cause backtracking to select new -branches or combinations of hypotheses, or inside the right-hand side -of the selected branch even if it has backtracking points. - -\ErrMsg \errindex{No matching clauses for match goal} - -No clause succeeds, i.e. all matching patterns, if any, -fail at the application of the right-hand-side. - -\medskip - -It is important to know that each hypothesis of the goal can be -matched by at most one hypothesis pattern. The order of matching is -the following: hypothesis patterns are examined from the right to the -left (i.e. $hyp_{i,m_i}$ before $hyp_{i,1}$). For each hypothesis -pattern, the goal hypothesis are matched in order (fresher hypothesis -first), but it possible to reverse this order (older first) with -the {\tt match reverse goal with} variant. - -\variant - -\index{multimatch goal@\texttt{multimatch goal}!in Ltac} -\index{Ltac!multimatch goal@\texttt{multimatch goal}} -\index{multimatch reverse goal@\texttt{multimatch reverse goal}!in Ltac} -\index{Ltac!multimatch reverse goal@\texttt{multimatch reverse goal}} - -Using {\tt multimatch} instead of {\tt match} will allow subsequent -tactics to backtrack into a right-hand side tactic which has -backtracking points left and trigger the selection of a new matching -branch or combination of hypotheses when all the backtracking points -of the right-hand side have been consumed. - -The syntax {\tt match [reverse] goal \ldots} is, in fact, a shorthand for -{\tt once multimatch [reverse] goal \ldots}. - -\index{lazymatch goal@\texttt{lazymatch goal}!in Ltac} -\index{Ltac!lazymatch goal@\texttt{lazymatch goal}} -\index{lazymatch reverse goal@\texttt{lazymatch reverse goal}!in Ltac} -\index{Ltac!lazymatch reverse goal@\texttt{lazymatch reverse goal}} -Using {\tt lazymatch} instead of {\tt match} will perform the same -pattern matching procedure but will commit to the first matching -branch with the first matching combination of hypotheses rather than -trying a new matching if the right-hand side fails. If the right-hand -side of the selected branch is a tactic with backtracking points, then -subsequent failures cause this tactic to backtrack. - -\subsubsection[Filling a term context]{Filling a term context\index{context@\texttt{context}!in expression}} - -The following expression is not a tactic in the sense that it does not -produce subgoals but generates a term to be used in tactic -expressions: -\begin{quote} -{\tt context} {\ident} {\tt [} {\tacexpr} {\tt ]} -\end{quote} -{\ident} must denote a context variable bound by a {\tt context} -pattern of a {\tt match} expression. This expression evaluates -replaces the hole of the value of {\ident} by the value of -{\tacexpr}. - -\ErrMsg \errindex{not a context variable} - - -\subsubsection[Generating fresh hypothesis names]{Generating fresh hypothesis names\index{Ltac!fresh@\texttt{fresh}} -\index{fresh@\texttt{fresh}!in Ltac}} - -Tactics sometimes have to generate new names for hypothesis. Letting -the system decide a name with the {\tt intro} tactic is not so good -since it is very awkward to retrieve the name the system gave. -The following expression returns an identifier: -\begin{quote} -{\tt fresh} \nelist{\textrm{\textsl{component}}}{} -\end{quote} -It evaluates to an identifier unbound in the goal. This fresh -identifier is obtained by concatenating the value of the -\textrm{\textsl{component}}'s (each of them is, either an {\qualid} which -has to refer to a (unqualified) name, or directly a name denoted by a -{\qstring}). If the resulting name is already used, it is padded -with a number so that it becomes fresh. If no component is -given, the name is a fresh derivative of the name {\tt H}. - -\subsubsection[Computing in a constr]{Computing in a constr\index{Ltac!eval@\texttt{eval}} -\index{eval@\texttt{eval}!in Ltac}} - -Evaluation of a term can be performed with: -\begin{quote} -{\tt eval} {\nterm{redexpr}} {\tt in} {\term} -\end{quote} -where \nterm{redexpr} is a reduction tactic among {\tt red}, {\tt -hnf}, {\tt compute}, {\tt simpl}, {\tt cbv}, {\tt lazy}, {\tt unfold}, -{\tt fold}, {\tt pattern}. - -\subsubsection{Recovering the type of a term} -%\tacindex{type of} -\index{Ltac!type of@\texttt{type of}} -\index{type of@\texttt{type of}!in Ltac} - -The following returns the type of {\term}: - -\begin{quote} -{\tt type of} {\term} -\end{quote} - -\subsubsection[Manipulating untyped terms]{Manipulating untyped terms\index{Ltac!uconstr@\texttt{uconstr}} -\index{uconstr@\texttt{uconstr}!in Ltac} -\index{Ltac!type\_term@\texttt{type\_term}} -\index{type\_term@\texttt{type\_term}!in Ltac}} - -The terms built in Ltac are well-typed by default. It may not be -appropriate for building large terms using a recursive Ltac function: -the term has to be entirely type checked at each step, resulting in -potentially very slow behavior. It is possible to build untyped terms -using Ltac with the syntax - -\begin{quote} -{\tt uconstr :} {\term} -\end{quote} - -An untyped term, in Ltac, can contain references to hypotheses or to -Ltac variables containing typed or untyped terms. An untyped term can -be type-checked using the function {\tt type\_term} whose argument is -parsed as an untyped term and returns a well-typed term which can be -used in tactics. - -\begin{quote} -{\tt type\_term} {\term} -\end{quote} - -Untyped terms built using {\tt uconstr :} can also be used as -arguments to the {\tt refine} tactic~\ref{refine}. In that case the -untyped term is type checked against the conclusion of the goal, and -the holes which are not solved by the typing procedure are turned into -new subgoals. - -\subsubsection[Counting the goals]{Counting the goals\index{Ltac!numgoals@\texttt{numgoals}}\index{numgoals@\texttt{numgoals}!in Ltac}} - -The number of goals under focus can be recovered using the {\tt - numgoals} function. Combined with the {\tt guard} command below, it -can be used to branch over the number of goals produced by previous tactics. - -\begin{coq_example*} -Ltac pr_numgoals := let n := numgoals in idtac "There are" n "goals". - -Goal True /\ True /\ True. -split;[|split]. -\end{coq_example*} -\begin{coq_example} -all:pr_numgoals. -\end{coq_example} - -\subsubsection[Testing boolean expressions]{Testing boolean expressions\index{Ltac!guard@\texttt{guard}}\index{guard@\texttt{guard}!in Ltac}} - -The {\tt guard} tactic tests a boolean expression, and fails if the expression evaluates to false. If the expression evaluates to true, it succeeds without affecting the proof. - -\begin{quote} -{\tt guard} {\it test} -\end{quote} - -The accepted tests are simple integer comparisons. - -\begin{coq_example*} -Goal True /\ True /\ True. -split;[|split]. -\end{coq_example*} -\begin{coq_example} -all:let n:= numgoals in guard n<4. -Fail all:let n:= numgoals in guard n=2. -\end{coq_example} -\begin{ErrMsgs} - -\item \errindex{Condition not satisfied} - -\end{ErrMsgs} - -\begin{coq_eval} -Reset Initial. -\end{coq_eval} - -\subsubsection[Proving a subgoal as a separate lemma]{Proving a subgoal as a separate lemma\tacindex{abstract}\tacindex{transparent\_abstract} -\index{Tacticals!abstract@{\tt abstract}}\index{Tacticals!transparent\_abstract@{\tt transparent\_abstract}}} - -From the outside ``\texttt{abstract \tacexpr}'' is the same as -{\tt solve \tacexpr}. Internally it saves an auxiliary lemma called -{\ident}\texttt{\_subproof}\textit{n} where {\ident} is the name of the -current goal and \textit{n} is chosen so that this is a fresh name. -Such an auxiliary lemma is inlined in the final proof term. - -This tactical is useful with tactics such as \texttt{omega} or -\texttt{discriminate} that generate huge proof terms. With that tool -the user can avoid the explosion at time of the \texttt{Save} command -without having to cut manually the proof in smaller lemmas. - -It may be useful to generate lemmas minimal w.r.t. the assumptions they depend -on. This can be obtained thanks to the option below. - -\begin{Variants} -\item \texttt{abstract {\tacexpr} using {\ident}}.\\ - Give explicitly the name of the auxiliary lemma. - Use this feature at your own risk; explicitly named and reused subterms - don't play well with asynchronous proofs. -\item \texttt{transparent\_abstract {\tacexpr}}.\\ - Save the subproof in a transparent lemma rather than an opaque one. - Use this feature at your own risk; building computationally relevant terms - with tactics is fragile. -\item \texttt{transparent\_abstract {\tacexpr} using {\ident}}.\\ - Give explicitly the name of the auxiliary transparent lemma. - Use this feature at your own risk; building computationally relevant terms - with tactics is fragile, and explicitly named and reused subterms - don't play well with asynchronous proofs. -\end{Variants} - -\ErrMsg \errindex{Proof is not complete} - -\section[Tactic toplevel definitions]{Tactic toplevel definitions\comindex{Ltac}} - -\subsection{Defining {\ltac} functions} - -Basically, {\ltac} toplevel definitions are made as follows: -%{\tt Tactic Definition} {\ident} {\tt :=} {\tacexpr}\\ -% -%{\tacexpr} is evaluated to $v$ and $v$ is associated to {\ident}. Next, every -%script is evaluated by substituting $v$ to {\ident}. -% -%We can define functional definitions by:\\ -\begin{quote} -{\tt Ltac} {\ident} {\ident}$_1$ ... {\ident}$_n$ {\tt :=} -{\tacexpr} -\end{quote} -This defines a new {\ltac} function that can be used in any tactic -script or new {\ltac} toplevel definition. - -\Rem The preceding definition can equivalently be written: -\begin{quote} -{\tt Ltac} {\ident} {\tt := fun} {\ident}$_1$ ... {\ident}$_n$ -{\tt =>} {\tacexpr} -\end{quote} -Recursive and mutual recursive function definitions are also -possible with the syntax: -\begin{quote} -{\tt Ltac} {\ident}$_1$ {\ident}$_{1,1}$ ... -{\ident}$_{1,m_1}$~~{\tt :=} {\tacexpr}$_1$\\ -{\tt with} {\ident}$_2$ {\ident}$_{2,1}$ ... {\ident}$_{2,m_2}$~~{\tt :=} -{\tacexpr}$_2$\\ -...\\ -{\tt with} {\ident}$_n$ {\ident}$_{n,1}$ ... {\ident}$_{n,m_n}$~~{\tt :=} -{\tacexpr}$_n$ -\end{quote} -\medskip -It is also possible to \emph{redefine} an existing user-defined tactic -using the syntax: -\begin{quote} -{\tt Ltac} {\qualid} {\ident}$_1$ ... {\ident}$_n$ {\tt ::=} -{\tacexpr} -\end{quote} -A previous definition of {\qualid} must exist in the environment. -The new definition will always be used instead of the old one and -it goes across module boundaries. - -If preceded by the keyword {\tt Local} the tactic definition will not -be exported outside the current module. - -\subsection[Printing {\ltac} tactics]{Printing {\ltac} tactics\comindex{Print Ltac}} - -Defined {\ltac} functions can be displayed using the command - -\begin{quote} -{\tt Print Ltac {\qualid}.} -\end{quote} - -The command {\tt Print Ltac Signatures\comindex{Print Ltac Signatures}} displays a list of all user-defined tactics, with their arguments. - -\section{Debugging {\ltac} tactics} - -\subsection[Info trace]{Info trace\comindex{Info}\optindex{Info Level}} - -It is possible to print the trace of the path eventually taken by an {\ltac} script. That is, the list of executed tactics, discarding all the branches which have failed. To that end the {\tt Info} command can be used with the following syntax. - -\begin{quote} -{\tt Info} {\num} {\tacexpr}. -\end{quote} - -The number {\num} is the unfolding level of tactics in the trace. At level $0$, the trace contains a sequence of tactics in the actual script, at level $1$, the trace will be the concatenation of the traces of these tactics, etc\ldots - -\begin{coq_eval} -Reset Initial. -\end{coq_eval} -\begin{coq_example*} -Ltac t x := exists x; reflexivity. - -Goal exists n, n=0. -\end{coq_example*} -\begin{coq_example} -Info 0 t 1||t 0. -\end{coq_example} -\begin{coq_example*} -Undo. -\end{coq_example*} -\begin{coq_example} -Info 1 t 1||t 0. -\end{coq_example} - -The trace produced by {\tt Info} tries its best to be a reparsable {\ltac} script, but this goal is not achievable in all generality. So some of the output traces will contain oddities. - -As an additional help for debugging, the trace produced by {\tt Info} contains (in comments) the messages produced by the {\tt idtac} tacticals~\ref{ltac:idtac} at the right possition in the script. In particular, the calls to {\tt idtac} in branches which failed are not printed. - -An alternative to the {\tt Info} command is to use the {\tt Info Level} option as follows: - -\begin{quote} -{\tt Set Info Level} \num. -\end{quote} - -This will automatically print the same trace as {\tt Info \num} at each tactic call. The unfolding level can be overridden by a call to the {\tt Info} command. And this option can be turned off with: - -\begin{quote} -{\tt Unset Info Level} \num. -\end{quote} - -The current value for the {\tt Info Level} option can be checked using the {\tt Test Info Level} command. - -\subsection[Interactive debugger]{Interactive debugger\optindex{Ltac Debug}\optindex{Ltac Batch Debug}} - -The {\ltac} interpreter comes with a step-by-step debugger. The -debugger can be activated using the command - -\begin{quote} -{\tt Set Ltac Debug.} -\end{quote} - -\noindent and deactivated using the command - -\begin{quote} -{\tt Unset Ltac Debug.} -\end{quote} - -To know if the debugger is on, use the command \texttt{Test Ltac Debug}. -When the debugger is activated, it stops at every step of the -evaluation of the current {\ltac} expression and it prints information -on what it is doing. The debugger stops, prompting for a command which -can be one of the following: - -\medskip -\begin{tabular}{ll} -simple newline: & go to the next step\\ -h: & get help\\ -x: & exit current evaluation\\ -s: & continue current evaluation without stopping\\ -r $n$: & advance $n$ steps further\\ -r {\qstring}: & advance up to the next call to ``{\tt idtac} {\qstring}''\\ -\end{tabular} - -A non-interactive mode for the debugger is available via the command - -\begin{quote} -{\tt Set Ltac Batch Debug.} -\end{quote} - -This option has the effect of presenting a newline at every prompt, -when the debugger is on. The debug log thus created, which does not -require user input to generate when this option is set, can then be -run through external tools such as \texttt{diff}. - -\subsection[Profiling {\ltac} tactics]{Profiling {\ltac} tactics\optindex{Ltac Profiling}\comindex{Show Ltac Profile}\comindex{Reset Ltac Profile}} - -It is possible to measure the time spent in invocations of primitive tactics as well as tactics defined in {\ltac} and their inner invocations. The primary use is the development of complex tactics, which can sometimes be so slow as to impede interactive usage. The reasons for the performence degradation can be intricate, like a slowly performing {\ltac} match or a sub-tactic whose performance only degrades in certain situations. The profiler generates a call tree and indicates the time spent in a tactic depending its calling context. Thus it allows to locate the part of a tactic definition that contains the performance bug. - -\begin{quote} -{\tt Set Ltac Profiling}. -\end{quote} -Enables the profiler - -\begin{quote} -{\tt Unset Ltac Profiling}. -\end{quote} -Disables the profiler - -\begin{quote} -{\tt Show Ltac Profile}. -\end{quote} -Prints the profile - -\begin{quote} -{\tt Show Ltac Profile} {\qstring}. -\end{quote} -Prints a profile for all tactics that start with {\qstring}. Append a period (.) to the string if you only want exactly that name. - -\begin{quote} -{\tt Reset Ltac Profile}. -\end{quote} -Resets the profile, that is, deletes all accumulated information. Note that backtracking across a {\tt Reset Ltac Profile} will not restore the information. - -\begin{coq_eval} -Reset Initial. -\end{coq_eval} -\begin{coq_example*} -Require Import Coq.omega.Omega. - -Ltac mytauto := tauto. -Ltac tac := intros; repeat split; omega || mytauto. - -Notation max x y := (x + (y - x)) (only parsing). -\end{coq_example*} -\begin{coq_example*} -Goal forall x y z A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z, - max x (max y z) = max (max x y) z /\ max x (max y z) = max (max x y) z - /\ (A /\ B /\ C /\ D /\ E /\ F /\ G /\ H /\ I /\ J /\ K /\ L /\ M /\ N /\ O /\ P /\ Q /\ R /\ S /\ T /\ U /\ V /\ W /\ X /\ Y /\ Z - -> Z /\ Y /\ X /\ W /\ V /\ U /\ T /\ S /\ R /\ Q /\ P /\ O /\ N /\ M /\ L /\ K /\ J /\ I /\ H /\ G /\ F /\ E /\ D /\ C /\ B /\ A). -Proof. -\end{coq_example*} -\begin{coq_example} - Set Ltac Profiling. - tac. -\end{coq_example} -{\let\textit\texttt% use tt mode for the output of ltacprof -\begin{coq_example} - Show Ltac Profile. -\end{coq_example} -\begin{coq_example} - Show Ltac Profile "omega". -\end{coq_example} -} -\begin{coq_example*} -Abort. -Unset Ltac Profiling. -\end{coq_example*} - -\tacindex{start ltac profiling}\tacindex{stop ltac profiling} -The following two tactics behave like {\tt idtac} but enable and disable the profiling. They allow you to exclude parts of a proof script from profiling. - -\begin{quote} -{\tt start ltac profiling}. -\end{quote} - -\begin{quote} -{\tt stop ltac profiling}. -\end{quote} - -\tacindex{reset ltac profile}\tacindex{show ltac profile} -The following tactics behave like the corresponding vernacular commands and allow displaying and resetting the profile from tactic scripts for benchmarking purposes. - -\begin{quote} -{\tt reset ltac profile}. -\end{quote} - -\begin{quote} -{\tt show ltac profile}. -\end{quote} - -\begin{quote} -{\tt show ltac profile} {\qstring}. -\end{quote} - -You can also pass the {\tt -profile-ltac} command line option to {\tt coqc}, which performs a {\tt Set Ltac Profiling} at the beginning of each document, and a {\tt Show Ltac Profile} at the end. - -Note that the profiler currently does not handle backtracking into multi-success tactics, and issues a warning to this effect in many cases when such backtracking occurs. - -\subsection[Run-time optimization tactic]{Run-time optimization tactic\label{tactic-optimizeheap}}. - -The following tactic behaves like {\tt idtac}, and running it compacts the heap in the -OCaml run-time system. It is analogous to the Vernacular command {\tt Optimize Heap} (see~\ref{vernac-optimizeheap}). - -\tacindex{optimize\_heap} -\begin{quote} -{\tt optimize\_heap}. -\end{quote} - -\endinput - -\subsection{Permutation on closed lists} - -\begin{figure}[b] -\begin{center} -\fbox{\begin{minipage}{0.95\textwidth} -\begin{coq_eval} -Reset Initial. -\end{coq_eval} -\begin{coq_example*} -Require Import List. -Section Sort. -Variable A : Set. -Inductive permut : list A -> list A -> Prop := - | permut_refl : forall l, permut l l - | permut_cons : - forall a l0 l1, permut l0 l1 -> permut (a :: l0) (a :: l1) - | permut_append : forall a l, permut (a :: l) (l ++ a :: nil) - | permut_trans : - forall l0 l1 l2, permut l0 l1 -> permut l1 l2 -> permut l0 l2. -End Sort. -\end{coq_example*} -\end{center} -\caption{Definition of the permutation predicate} -\label{permutpred} -\end{figure} - - -Another more complex example is the problem of permutation on closed -lists. The aim is to show that a closed list is a permutation of -another one. First, we define the permutation predicate as shown on -Figure~\ref{permutpred}. - -\begin{figure}[p] -\begin{center} -\fbox{\begin{minipage}{0.95\textwidth} -\begin{coq_example} -Ltac Permut n := - match goal with - | |- (permut _ ?l ?l) => apply permut_refl - | |- (permut _ (?a :: ?l1) (?a :: ?l2)) => - let newn := eval compute in (length l1) in - (apply permut_cons; Permut newn) - | |- (permut ?A (?a :: ?l1) ?l2) => - match eval compute in n with - | 1 => fail - | _ => - let l1' := constr:(l1 ++ a :: nil) in - (apply (permut_trans A (a :: l1) l1' l2); - [ apply permut_append | compute; Permut (pred n) ]) - end - end. -Ltac PermutProve := - match goal with - | |- (permut _ ?l1 ?l2) => - match eval compute in (length l1 = length l2) with - | (?n = ?n) => Permut n - end - end. -\end{coq_example} -\end{minipage}} -\end{center} -\caption{Permutation tactic} -\label{permutltac} -\end{figure} - -\begin{figure}[p] -\begin{center} -\fbox{\begin{minipage}{0.95\textwidth} -\begin{coq_example*} -Lemma permut_ex1 : - permut nat (1 :: 2 :: 3 :: nil) (3 :: 2 :: 1 :: nil). -Proof. -PermutProve. -Qed. - -Lemma permut_ex2 : - permut nat - (0 :: 1 :: 2 :: 3 :: 4 :: 5 :: 6 :: 7 :: 8 :: 9 :: nil) - (0 :: 2 :: 4 :: 6 :: 8 :: 9 :: 7 :: 5 :: 3 :: 1 :: nil). -Proof. -PermutProve. -Qed. -\end{coq_example*} -\end{minipage}} -\end{center} -\caption{Examples of {\tt PermutProve} use} -\label{permutlem} -\end{figure} - -Next, we can write naturally the tactic and the result can be seen on -Figure~\ref{permutltac}. We can notice that we use two toplevel -definitions {\tt PermutProve} and {\tt Permut}. The function to be -called is {\tt PermutProve} which computes the lengths of the two -lists and calls {\tt Permut} with the length if the two lists have the -same length. {\tt Permut} works as expected. If the two lists are -equal, it concludes. Otherwise, if the lists have identical first -elements, it applies {\tt Permut} on the tail of the lists. Finally, -if the lists have different first elements, it puts the first element -of one of the lists (here the second one which appears in the {\tt - permut} predicate) at the end if that is possible, i.e., if the new -first element has been at this place previously. To verify that all -rotations have been done for a list, we use the length of the list as -an argument for {\tt Permut} and this length is decremented for each -rotation down to, but not including, 1 because for a list of length -$n$, we can make exactly $n-1$ rotations to generate at most $n$ -distinct lists. Here, it must be noticed that we use the natural -numbers of {\Coq} for the rotation counter. On Figure~\ref{ltac}, we -can see that it is possible to use usual natural numbers but they are -only used as arguments for primitive tactics and they cannot be -handled, in particular, we cannot make computations with them. So, a -natural choice is to use {\Coq} data structures so that {\Coq} makes -the computations (reductions) by {\tt eval compute in} and we can get -the terms back by {\tt match}. - -With {\tt PermutProve}, we can now prove lemmas such those shown on -Figure~\ref{permutlem}. - - -\subsection{Deciding intuitionistic propositional logic} - -\begin{figure}[tbp] -\begin{center} -\fbox{\begin{minipage}{0.95\textwidth} -\begin{coq_example} -Ltac Axioms := - match goal with - | |- True => trivial - | _:False |- _ => elimtype False; assumption - | _:?A |- ?A => auto - end. -Ltac DSimplif := - repeat - (intros; - match goal with - | id:(~ _) |- _ => red in id - | id:(_ /\ _) |- _ => - elim id; do 2 intro; clear id - | id:(_ \/ _) |- _ => - elim id; intro; clear id - | id:(?A /\ ?B -> ?C) |- _ => - cut (A -> B -> C); - [ intro | intros; apply id; split; assumption ] - | id:(?A \/ ?B -> ?C) |- _ => - cut (B -> C); - [ cut (A -> C); - [ intros; clear id - | intro; apply id; left; assumption ] - | intro; apply id; right; assumption ] - | id0:(?A -> ?B),id1:?A |- _ => - cut B; [ intro; clear id0 | apply id0; assumption ] - | |- (_ /\ _) => split - | |- (~ _) => red - end). -\end{coq_example} -\end{minipage}} -\end{center} -\caption{Deciding intuitionistic propositions (1)} -\label{tautoltaca} -\end{figure} - -\begin{figure} -\begin{center} -\fbox{\begin{minipage}{0.95\textwidth} -\begin{coq_example} -Ltac TautoProp := - DSimplif; - Axioms || - match goal with - | id:((?A -> ?B) -> ?C) |- _ => - cut (B -> C); - [ intro; cut (A -> B); - [ intro; cut C; - [ intro; clear id | apply id; assumption ] - | clear id ] - | intro; apply id; intro; assumption ]; TautoProp - | id:(~ ?A -> ?B) |- _ => - cut (False -> B); - [ intro; cut (A -> False); - [ intro; cut B; - [ intro; clear id | apply id; assumption ] - | clear id ] - | intro; apply id; red; intro; assumption ]; TautoProp - | |- (_ \/ _) => (left; TautoProp) || (right; TautoProp) - end. -\end{coq_example} -\end{minipage}} -\end{center} -\caption{Deciding intuitionistic propositions (2)} -\label{tautoltacb} -\end{figure} - -The pattern matching on goals allows a complete and so a powerful -backtracking when returning tactic values. An interesting application -is the problem of deciding intuitionistic propositional logic. -Considering the contraction-free sequent calculi {\tt LJT*} of -Roy~Dyckhoff (\cite{Dyc92}), it is quite natural to code such a tactic -using the tactic language. On Figure~\ref{tautoltaca}, the tactic {\tt - Axioms} tries to conclude using usual axioms. The {\tt DSimplif} -tactic applies all the reversible rules of Dyckhoff's system. -Finally, on Figure~\ref{tautoltacb}, the {\tt TautoProp} tactic (the -main tactic to be called) simplifies with {\tt DSimplif}, tries to -conclude with {\tt Axioms} and tries several paths using the -backtracking rules (one of the four Dyckhoff's rules for the left -implication to get rid of the contraction and the right or). - -\begin{figure}[tb] -\begin{center} -\fbox{\begin{minipage}{0.95\textwidth} -\begin{coq_example*} -Lemma tauto_ex1 : forall A B:Prop, A /\ B -> A \/ B. -Proof. -TautoProp. -Qed. - -Lemma tauto_ex2 : - forall A B:Prop, (~ ~ B -> B) -> (A -> B) -> ~ ~ A -> B. -Proof. -TautoProp. -Qed. -\end{coq_example*} -\end{minipage}} -\end{center} -\caption{Proofs of tautologies with {\tt TautoProp}} -\label{tautolem} -\end{figure} - -For example, with {\tt TautoProp}, we can prove tautologies like those of -Figure~\ref{tautolem}. - - -\subsection{Deciding type isomorphisms} - -A more tricky problem is to decide equalities between types and modulo -isomorphisms. Here, we choose to use the isomorphisms of the simply typed -$\lb{}$-calculus with Cartesian product and $unit$ type (see, for example, -\cite{RC95}). The axioms of this $\lb{}$-calculus are given by -Figure~\ref{isosax}. - -\begin{figure} -\begin{center} -\fbox{\begin{minipage}{0.95\textwidth} -\begin{coq_eval} -Reset Initial. -\end{coq_eval} -\begin{coq_example*} -Open Scope type_scope. -Section Iso_axioms. -Variables A B C : Set. -Axiom Com : A * B = B * A. -Axiom Ass : A * (B * C) = A * B * C. -Axiom Cur : (A * B -> C) = (A -> B -> C). -Axiom Dis : (A -> B * C) = (A -> B) * (A -> C). -Axiom P_unit : A * unit = A. -Axiom AR_unit : (A -> unit) = unit. -Axiom AL_unit : (unit -> A) = A. -Lemma Cons : B = C -> A * B = A * C. -Proof. -intro Heq; rewrite Heq; reflexivity. -Qed. -End Iso_axioms. -\end{coq_example*} -\end{minipage}} -\end{center} -\caption{Type isomorphism axioms} -\label{isosax} -\end{figure} - -The tactic to judge equalities modulo this axiomatization can be written as -shown on Figures~\ref{isosltac1} and~\ref{isosltac2}. The algorithm is quite -simple. Types are reduced using axioms that can be oriented (this done by {\tt -MainSimplif}). The normal forms are sequences of Cartesian -products without Cartesian product in the left component. These normal forms -are then compared modulo permutation of the components (this is done by {\tt -CompareStruct}). The main tactic to be called and realizing this algorithm is -{\tt IsoProve}. - -\begin{figure} -\begin{center} -\fbox{\begin{minipage}{0.95\textwidth} -\begin{coq_example} -Ltac DSimplif trm := - match trm with - | (?A * ?B * ?C) => - rewrite <- (Ass A B C); try MainSimplif - | (?A * ?B -> ?C) => - rewrite (Cur A B C); try MainSimplif - | (?A -> ?B * ?C) => - rewrite (Dis A B C); try MainSimplif - | (?A * unit) => - rewrite (P_unit A); try MainSimplif - | (unit * ?B) => - rewrite (Com unit B); try MainSimplif - | (?A -> unit) => - rewrite (AR_unit A); try MainSimplif - | (unit -> ?B) => - rewrite (AL_unit B); try MainSimplif - | (?A * ?B) => - (DSimplif A; try MainSimplif) || (DSimplif B; try MainSimplif) - | (?A -> ?B) => - (DSimplif A; try MainSimplif) || (DSimplif B; try MainSimplif) - end - with MainSimplif := - match goal with - | |- (?A = ?B) => try DSimplif A; try DSimplif B - end. -Ltac Length trm := - match trm with - | (_ * ?B) => let succ := Length B in constr:(S succ) - | _ => constr:1 - end. -Ltac assoc := repeat rewrite <- Ass. -\end{coq_example} -\end{minipage}} -\end{center} -\caption{Type isomorphism tactic (1)} -\label{isosltac1} -\end{figure} - -\begin{figure} -\begin{center} -\fbox{\begin{minipage}{0.95\textwidth} -\begin{coq_example} -Ltac DoCompare n := - match goal with - | [ |- (?A = ?A) ] => reflexivity - | [ |- (?A * ?B = ?A * ?C) ] => - apply Cons; let newn := Length B in DoCompare newn - | [ |- (?A * ?B = ?C) ] => - match eval compute in n with - | 1 => fail - | _ => - pattern (A * B) at 1; rewrite Com; assoc; DoCompare (pred n) - end - end. -Ltac CompareStruct := - match goal with - | [ |- (?A = ?B) ] => - let l1 := Length A - with l2 := Length B in - match eval compute in (l1 = l2) with - | (?n = ?n) => DoCompare n - end - end. -Ltac IsoProve := MainSimplif; CompareStruct. -\end{coq_example} -\end{minipage}} -\end{center} -\caption{Type isomorphism tactic (2)} -\label{isosltac2} -\end{figure} - -Figure~\ref{isoslem} gives examples of what can be solved by {\tt IsoProve}. - -\begin{figure} -\begin{center} -\fbox{\begin{minipage}{0.95\textwidth} -\begin{coq_example*} -Lemma isos_ex1 : - forall A B:Set, A * unit * B = B * (unit * A). -Proof. -intros; IsoProve. -Qed. - -Lemma isos_ex2 : - forall A B C:Set, - (A * unit -> B * (C * unit)) = - (A * unit -> (C -> unit) * C) * (unit -> A -> B). -Proof. -intros; IsoProve. -Qed. -\end{coq_example*} -\end{minipage}} -\end{center} -\caption{Type equalities solved by {\tt IsoProve}} -\label{isoslem} -\end{figure} - -%%% Local Variables: -%%% mode: latex -%%% TeX-master: "Reference-Manual" -%%% End: diff --git a/doc/refman/Reference-Manual.tex b/doc/refman/Reference-Manual.tex deleted file mode 100644 index d373f76bfc..0000000000 --- a/doc/refman/Reference-Manual.tex +++ /dev/null @@ -1,135 +0,0 @@ -%\RequirePackage{ifpdf} -%\ifpdf -% \documentclass[11pt,a4paper,pdftex]{book} -%\else - \documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{book} -%\fi - -\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} -\usepackage[T1]{fontenc} -\usepackage{textcomp} -\usepackage{times} -\usepackage{url} -\usepackage{verbatim} -\usepackage{amsmath} -\usepackage{amssymb} -\usepackage{alltt} -\usepackage{hevea} -\usepackage{ifpdf} -\usepackage[headings]{fullpage} -\usepackage{headers} % in this directory -\usepackage{multicol} -\usepackage{xspace} -\usepackage{pmboxdraw} -\usepackage{float} -\usepackage{color} - \definecolor{dkblue}{rgb}{0,0.1,0.5} - \definecolor{lightblue}{rgb}{0,0.5,0.5} - \definecolor{dkgreen}{rgb}{0,0.4,0} - \definecolor{dk2green}{rgb}{0.4,0,0} - \definecolor{dkviolet}{rgb}{0.6,0,0.8} - \definecolor{dkpink}{rgb}{0.2,0,0.6} -\usepackage{listings} - \def\lstlanguagefiles{coq-listing.tex} -\usepackage{tabularx} -\usepackage{array,longtable} - -\floatstyle{boxed} -\restylefloat{figure} - -% for coqide -\ifpdf % si on est pas en pdflatex - \usepackage[pdftex]{graphicx} -\else - \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx} -\fi - - -%\includeonly{Setoid} - -\input{../common/version.tex} -\input{../common/macros.tex}% extension .tex pour htmlgen -\input{../common/title.tex}% extension .tex pour htmlgen -%\input{headers} - -\usepackage[linktocpage,colorlinks,bookmarks=true,bookmarksnumbered=true]{hyperref} -% The manual advises to load hyperref package last to be able to redefine -% necessary commands. -% The above should work for both latex and pdflatex. Even if PDF is produced -% through DVI and PS using dvips and ps2pdf, hyperlinks should still work. -% linktocpage option makes page numbers, not section names, to be links in -% the table of contents. -% colorlinks option colors the links instead of using boxes. - -% The command \tocnumber was added to HEVEA in version 1.06-6. -% It instructs HEVEA to put chapter numbers into the table of -% content entries. The table of content is produced by HACHA using -% the options -tocbis -o toc.html. HEVEA produces a warning when -% a command is not recognized, so versions earlier than 1.06-6 can -% still be used. -%HEVEA\tocnumber - -\begin{document} -%BEGIN LATEX -\sloppy\hbadness=5000 -%END LATEX - -%BEGIN LATEX -\coverpage{Reference Manual} -{The Coq Development Team} -{This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and -conditions set forth in the Open Publication License, v1.0 or later -(the latest version is presently available at -\url{http://www.opencontent.org/openpub}). -Options A and B of the licence are {\em not} elected.} -%END LATEX - -%\defaultheaders - -%BEGIN LATEX -\tableofcontents -%END LATEX - -\part{The language} -%BEGIN LATEX -\defaultheaders -%END LATEX -\include{RefMan-gal.v}% Gallina - - -\part{The proof engine} -\include{RefMan-ltac.v}% Writing tactics - -\lstset{language=SSR} -\lstset{moredelim=[is][]{|*}{*|}} -\lstset{moredelim=*[is][\itshape\rmfamily]{/*}{*/}} - -%BEGIN LATEX -\RefManCutCommand{BEGINADDENDUM=\thepage} -%END LATEX -\part{Addendum to the Reference Manual} -\include{AddRefMan-pre}% -%BEGIN LATEX -\RefManCutCommand{ENDADDENDUM=\thepage} -%END LATEX -\nocite{*} -\bibliographystyle{plain} -\bibliography{biblio} -\cutname{biblio.html} - -\printrefmanindex{default}{Global Index}{general-index.html} -\printrefmanindex{tactic}{Tactics Index}{tactic-index.html} -\printrefmanindex{command}{Vernacular Commands Index}{command-index.html} -\printrefmanindex{option}{Vernacular Options Index}{option-index.html} -\printrefmanindex{error}{Index of Error Messages}{error-index.html} - -%BEGIN LATEX -\cleardoublepage -\phantomsection -\addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{\listfigurename} -\listoffigures -%END LATEX - -\end{document} - - diff --git a/doc/refman/biblio.bib b/doc/refman/biblio.bib deleted file mode 100644 index e69725838e..0000000000 --- a/doc/refman/biblio.bib +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1397 +0,0 @@ -@String{jfp = "Journal of Functional Programming"} -@String{lncs = "Lecture Notes in Computer Science"} -@String{lnai = "Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence"} -@String{SV = "{Sprin-ger-Verlag}"} - -@InProceedings{Aud91, - author = {Ph. Audebaud}, - booktitle = {Proceedings of the sixth Conf. on Logic in Computer Science.}, - publisher = {IEEE}, - title = {Partial {Objects} in the {Calculus of Constructions}}, - year = {1991} -} - -@PhDThesis{Aud92, - author = {Ph. Audebaud}, - school = {{Universit\'e} Bordeaux I}, - title = {Extension du Calcul des Constructions par Points fixes}, - year = {1992} -} - -@InProceedings{Audebaud92b, - author = {Ph. Audebaud}, - booktitle = {{Proceedings of the 1992 Workshop on Types for Proofs and Programs}}, - editor = {{B. Nordstr\"om and K. Petersson and G. Plotkin}}, - note = {Also Research Report LIP-ENS-Lyon}, - pages = {21--34}, - title = {{CC+ : an extension of the Calculus of Constructions with fixpoints}}, - year = {1992} -} - -@InProceedings{Augustsson85, - author = {L. Augustsson}, - title = {{Compiling Pattern Matching}}, - booktitle = {Conference Functional Programming and -Computer Architecture}, - year = {1985} -} - -@Article{BaCo85, - author = {J.L. Bates and R.L. Constable}, - journal = {ACM transactions on Programming Languages and Systems}, - title = {Proofs as {Programs}}, - volume = {7}, - year = {1985} -} - -@Book{Bar81, - author = {H.P. Barendregt}, - publisher = {North-Holland}, - title = {The Lambda Calculus its Syntax and Semantics}, - year = {1981} -} - -@TechReport{Bar91, - author = {H. Barendregt}, - institution = {Catholic University Nijmegen}, - note = {In Handbook of Logic in Computer Science, Vol II}, - number = {91-19}, - title = {Lambda {Calculi with Types}}, - year = {1991} -} - -@Article{BeKe92, - author = {G. Bellin and J. Ketonen}, - journal = {Theoretical Computer Science}, - pages = {115--142}, - title = {A decision procedure revisited : Notes on direct logic, linear logic and its implementation}, - volume = {95}, - year = {1992} -} - -@Book{Bee85, - author = {M.J. Beeson}, - publisher = SV, - title = {Foundations of Constructive Mathematics, Metamathematical Studies}, - year = {1985} -} - -@Book{Bis67, - author = {E. Bishop}, - publisher = {McGraw-Hill}, - title = {Foundations of Constructive Analysis}, - year = {1967} -} - -@Book{BoMo79, - author = {R.S. Boyer and J.S. Moore}, - key = {BoMo79}, - publisher = {Academic Press}, - series = {ACM Monograph}, - title = {A computational logic}, - year = {1979} -} - -@MastersThesis{Bou92, - author = {S. Boutin}, - month = sep, - school = {{Universit\'e Paris 7}}, - title = {Certification d'un compilateur {ML en Coq}}, - year = {1992} -} - -@InProceedings{Bou97, - title = {Using reflection to build efficient and certified decision procedure -s}, - author = {S. Boutin}, - booktitle = {TACS'97}, - editor = {Martin Abadi and Takahashi Ito}, - publisher = SV, - series = lncs, - volume = 1281, - year = {1997} -} - -@PhDThesis{Bou97These, - author = {S. Boutin}, - title = {R\'eflexions sur les quotients}, - school = {Paris 7}, - year = 1997, - type = {th\`ese d'Universit\'e}, - month = apr -} - -@Article{Bru72, - author = {N.J. de Bruijn}, - journal = {Indag. Math.}, - title = {{Lambda-Calculus Notation with Nameless Dummies, a Tool for Automatic Formula Manipulation, with Application to the Church-Rosser Theorem}}, - volume = {34}, - year = {1972} -} - - -@InCollection{Bru80, - author = {N.J. de Bruijn}, - booktitle = {to H.B. Curry : Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus and Formalism.}, - editor = {J.P. Seldin and J.R. Hindley}, - publisher = {Academic Press}, - title = {A survey of the project {Automath}}, - year = {1980} -} - -@TechReport{COQ93, - author = {G. Dowek and A. Felty and H. Herbelin and G. Huet and C. Murthy and C. Parent and C. Paulin-Mohring and B. Werner}, - institution = {INRIA}, - month = may, - number = {154}, - title = {{The Coq Proof Assistant User's Guide Version 5.8}}, - year = {1993} -} - -@TechReport{COQ02, - author = {The Coq Development Team}, - institution = {INRIA}, - month = Feb, - number = {255}, - title = {{The Coq Proof Assistant Reference Manual Version 7.2}}, - year = {2002} -} - -@TechReport{CPar93, - author = {C. Parent}, - institution = {Ecole {Normale} {Sup\'erieure} de {Lyon}}, - month = oct, - note = {Also in~\cite{Nijmegen93}}, - number = {93-29}, - title = {Developing certified programs in the system {Coq}- {The} {Program} tactic}, - year = {1993} -} - -@PhDThesis{CPar95, - author = {C. Parent}, - school = {Ecole {Normale} {Sup\'erieure} de {Lyon}}, - title = {{Synth\`ese de preuves de programmes dans le Calcul des Constructions Inductives}}, - year = {1995} -} - -@Book{Caml, - author = {P. Weis and X. Leroy}, - publisher = {InterEditions}, - title = {Le langage Caml}, - year = {1993} -} - -@InProceedings{ChiPotSimp03, - author = {Laurent Chicli and Lo\"{\i}c Pottier and Carlos Simpson}, - title = {Mathematical Quotients and Quotient Types in Coq}, - booktitle = {TYPES}, - crossref = {DBLP:conf/types/2002}, - year = {2002} -} - -@TechReport{CoC89, - author = {Projet Formel}, - institution = {INRIA}, - number = {110}, - title = {{The Calculus of Constructions. Documentation and user's guide, Version 4.10}}, - year = {1989} -} - -@InProceedings{CoHu85a, - author = {Th. Coquand and G. Huet}, - address = {Linz}, - booktitle = {EUROCAL'85}, - publisher = SV, - series = LNCS, - title = {{Constructions : A Higher Order Proof System for Mechanizing Mathematics}}, - volume = {203}, - year = {1985} -} - -@InProceedings{CoHu85b, - author = {Th. Coquand and G. Huet}, - booktitle = {Logic Colloquium'85}, - editor = {The Paris Logic Group}, - publisher = {North-Holland}, - title = {{Concepts Math\'ematiques et Informatiques formalis\'es dans le Calcul des Constructions}}, - year = {1987} -} - -@Article{CoHu86, - author = {Th. Coquand and G. Huet}, - journal = {Information and Computation}, - number = {2/3}, - title = {The {Calculus of Constructions}}, - volume = {76}, - year = {1988} -} - -@InProceedings{CoPa89, - author = {Th. Coquand and C. Paulin-Mohring}, - booktitle = {Proceedings of Colog'88}, - editor = {P. Martin-L\"of and G. Mints}, - publisher = SV, - series = LNCS, - title = {Inductively defined types}, - volume = {417}, - year = {1990} -} - -@Book{Con86, - author = {R.L. {Constable et al.}}, - publisher = {Prentice-Hall}, - title = {{Implementing Mathematics with the Nuprl Proof Development System}}, - year = {1986} -} - -@PhDThesis{Coq85, - author = {Th. Coquand}, - month = jan, - school = {Universit\'e Paris~7}, - title = {Une Th\'eorie des Constructions}, - year = {1985} -} - -@InProceedings{Coq86, - author = {Th. Coquand}, - address = {Cambridge, MA}, - booktitle = {Symposium on Logic in Computer Science}, - publisher = {IEEE Computer Society Press}, - title = {{An Analysis of Girard's Paradox}}, - year = {1986} -} - -@InProceedings{Coq90, - author = {Th. Coquand}, - booktitle = {Logic and Computer Science}, - editor = {P. Oddifredi}, - note = {INRIA Research Report 1088, also in~\cite{CoC89}}, - publisher = {Academic Press}, - title = {{Metamathematical Investigations of a Calculus of Constructions}}, - year = {1990} -} - -@InProceedings{Coq91, - author = {Th. Coquand}, - booktitle = {Proceedings 9th Int. Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science}, - title = {{A New Paradox in Type Theory}}, - month = {August}, - year = {1991} -} - -@InProceedings{Coq92, - author = {Th. Coquand}, - title = {{Pattern Matching with Dependent Types}}, - year = {1992}, - crossref = {Bastad92} -} - -@InProceedings{Coquand93, - author = {Th. Coquand}, - booktitle = {Types for Proofs and Programs}, - editor = {H. Barendregt and T. Nipokow}, - publisher = SV, - series = LNCS, - title = {{Infinite objects in Type Theory}}, - volume = {806}, - year = {1993}, - pages = {62-78} -} - -@inproceedings{Corbineau08types, - author = {P. Corbineau}, - title = {A Declarative Language for the Coq Proof Assistant}, - editor = {M. Miculan and I. Scagnetto and F. Honsell}, - booktitle = {TYPES '07, Cividale del Friuli, Revised Selected Papers}, - publisher = {Springer}, - series = LNCS, - volume = {4941}, - year = {2007}, - pages = {69-84}, - ee = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68103-8_5}, -} - -@PhDThesis{Cor97, - author = {C. Cornes}, - month = nov, - school = {{Universit\'e Paris 7}}, - title = {Conception d'un langage de haut niveau de représentation de preuves}, - type = {Th\`ese de Doctorat}, - year = {1997} -} - -@MastersThesis{Cou94a, - author = {J. Courant}, - month = sep, - school = {DEA d'Informatique, ENS Lyon}, - title = {Explicitation de preuves par r\'ecurrence implicite}, - year = {1994} -} - -@book{Cur58, - author = {Haskell B. Curry and Robert Feys and William Craig}, - title = {Combinatory Logic}, - volume = 1, - publisher = "North-Holland", - year = 1958, - note = {{\S{9E}}}, -} - -@InProceedings{Del99, - author = {Delahaye, D.}, - title = {Information Retrieval in a Coq Proof Library using - Type Isomorphisms}, - booktitle = {Proceedings of TYPES '99, L\"okeberg}, - publisher = SV, - series = lncs, - year = {1999}, - url = - "\\{\sf ftp://ftp.inria.fr/INRIA/Projects/coq/David.Delahaye/papers/}"# - "{\sf TYPES99-SIsos.ps.gz}" -} - -@InProceedings{Del00, - author = {Delahaye, D.}, - title = {A {T}actic {L}anguage for the {S}ystem {{\sf Coq}}}, - booktitle = {Proceedings of Logic for Programming and Automated Reasoning - (LPAR), Reunion Island}, - publisher = SV, - series = LNCS, - volume = {1955}, - pages = {85--95}, - month = {November}, - year = {2000}, - url = - "{\sf ftp://ftp.inria.fr/INRIA/Projects/coq/David.Delahaye/papers/}"# - "{\sf LPAR2000-ltac.ps.gz}" -} - -@InProceedings{DelMay01, - author = {Delahaye, D. and Mayero, M.}, - title = {{\tt Field}: une proc\'edure de d\'ecision pour les nombres r\'eels en {\Coq}}, - booktitle = {Journ\'ees Francophones des Langages Applicatifs, Pontarlier}, - publisher = {INRIA}, - month = {Janvier}, - year = {2001}, - url = - "\\{\sf ftp://ftp.inria.fr/INRIA/Projects/coq/David.Delahaye/papers/}"# - "{\sf JFLA2000-Field.ps.gz}" -} - -@TechReport{Dow90, - author = {G. Dowek}, - institution = {INRIA}, - number = {1283}, - title = {Naming and Scoping in a Mathematical Vernacular}, - type = {Research Report}, - year = {1990} -} - -@Article{Dow91a, - author = {G. Dowek}, - journal = {Compte-Rendus de l'Acad\'emie des Sciences}, - note = {The undecidability of Third Order Pattern Matching in Calculi with Dependent Types or Type Constructors}, - number = {12}, - pages = {951--956}, - title = {L'Ind\'ecidabilit\'e du Filtrage du Troisi\`eme Ordre dans les Calculs avec Types D\'ependants ou Constructeurs de Types}, - volume = {I, 312}, - year = {1991} -} - -@InProceedings{Dow91b, - author = {G. Dowek}, - booktitle = {Proceedings of Mathematical Foundation of Computer Science}, - note = {Also INRIA Research Report}, - pages = {151--160}, - publisher = SV, - series = LNCS, - title = {A Second Order Pattern Matching Algorithm in the Cube of Typed $\lambda$-calculi}, - volume = {520}, - year = {1991} -} - -@PhDThesis{Dow91c, - author = {G. Dowek}, - month = dec, - school = {Universit\'e Paris 7}, - title = {D\'emonstration automatique dans le Calcul des Constructions}, - year = {1991} -} - -@Article{Dow92a, - author = {G. Dowek}, - title = {The Undecidability of Pattern Matching in Calculi where Primitive Recursive Functions are Representable}, - year = 1993, - journal = tcs, - volume = 107, - number = 2, - pages = {349-356} -} - -@Article{Dow94a, - author = {G. Dowek}, - journal = {Annals of Pure and Applied Logic}, - volume = {69}, - pages = {135--155}, - title = {Third order matching is decidable}, - year = {1994} -} - -@InProceedings{Dow94b, - author = {G. Dowek}, - booktitle = {Proceedings of the second international conference on typed lambda calculus and applications}, - title = {Lambda-calculus, Combinators and the Comprehension Schema}, - year = {1995} -} - -@InProceedings{Dyb91, - author = {P. Dybjer}, - booktitle = {Logical Frameworks}, - editor = {G. Huet and G. Plotkin}, - pages = {59--79}, - publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, - title = {Inductive sets and families in {Martin-Löf's} - Type Theory and their set-theoretic semantics: An inversion principle for {Martin-L\"of's} type theory}, - volume = {14}, - year = {1991} -} - -@Article{Dyc92, - author = {Roy Dyckhoff}, - journal = {The Journal of Symbolic Logic}, - month = sep, - number = {3}, - title = {Contraction-free sequent calculi for intuitionistic logic}, - volume = {57}, - year = {1992} -} - -@MastersThesis{Fil94, - author = {J.-C. Filli\^atre}, - month = sep, - school = {DEA d'Informatique, ENS Lyon}, - title = {Une proc\'edure de d\'ecision pour le Calcul des Pr\'edicats Direct. Étude et impl\'ementation dans le syst\`eme {\Coq}}, - year = {1994} -} - -@TechReport{Filliatre95, - author = {J.-C. Filli\^atre}, - institution = {LIP-ENS-Lyon}, - title = {A decision procedure for Direct Predicate Calculus}, - type = {Research report}, - number = {96--25}, - year = {1995} -} - -@Article{Filliatre03jfp, - author = {J.-C. Filliâtre}, - title = {Verification of Non-Functional Programs - using Interpretations in Type Theory}, - journal = jfp, - volume = 13, - number = 4, - pages = {709--745}, - month = jul, - year = 2003, - note = {[English translation of \cite{Filliatre99}]}, - url = {http://www.lri.fr/~filliatr/ftp/publis/jphd.ps.gz}, - topics = {team, lri}, - type_publi = {irevcomlec} -} - -@PhDThesis{Filliatre99, - author = {J.-C. Filli\^atre}, - title = {Preuve de programmes imp\'eratifs en th\'eorie des types}, - type = {Thèse de Doctorat}, - school = {Universit\'e Paris-Sud}, - year = 1999, - month = {July}, - url = {\url{http://www.lri.fr/~filliatr/ftp/publis/these.ps.gz}} -} - -@Unpublished{Filliatre99c, - author = {J.-C. Filli\^atre}, - title = {{Formal Proof of a Program: Find}}, - month = {January}, - year = 2000, - note = {Submitted to \emph{Science of Computer Programming}}, - url = {\url{http://www.lri.fr/~filliatr/ftp/publis/find.ps.gz}} -} - -@InProceedings{FilliatreMagaud99, - author = {J.-C. Filli\^atre and N. Magaud}, - title = {Certification of sorting algorithms in the system {\Coq}}, - booktitle = {Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics: - Emerging Trends}, - year = 1999, - url = {\url{http://www.lri.fr/~filliatr/ftp/publis/Filliatre-Magaud.ps.gz}} -} - -@Unpublished{Fle90, - author = {E. Fleury}, - month = jul, - note = {Rapport de Stage}, - title = {Implantation des algorithmes de {Floyd et de Dijkstra} dans le {Calcul des Constructions}}, - year = {1990} -} - -@Book{Fourier, - author = {Jean-Baptiste-Joseph Fourier}, - publisher = {Gauthier-Villars}, - title = {Fourier's method to solve linear - inequations/equations systems.}, - year = {1890} -} - -@InProceedings{Gim94, - author = {E. Gim\'enez}, - booktitle = {Types'94 : Types for Proofs and Programs}, - note = {Extended version in LIP research report 95-07, ENS Lyon}, - publisher = SV, - series = LNCS, - title = {Codifying guarded definitions with recursive schemes}, - volume = {996}, - year = {1994} -} - -@PhDThesis{Gim96, - author = {E. Gim\'enez}, - title = {Un calcul des constructions infinies et son application \'a la v\'erification de syst\`emes communicants}, - school = {\'Ecole Normale Sup\'erieure de Lyon}, - year = {1996} -} - -@TechReport{Gim98, - author = {E. Gim\'enez}, - title = {A Tutorial on Recursive Types in Coq}, - institution = {INRIA}, - year = 1998, - month = mar -} - -@Unpublished{GimCas05, - author = {E. Gim\'enez and P. Cast\'eran}, - title = {A Tutorial on [Co-]Inductive Types in Coq}, - institution = {INRIA}, - year = 2005, - month = jan, - note = {available at \url{http://coq.inria.fr/doc}} -} - -@InProceedings{Gimenez95b, - author = {E. Gim\'enez}, - booktitle = {Workshop on Types for Proofs and Programs}, - series = LNCS, - number = {1158}, - pages = {135-152}, - title = {An application of co-Inductive types in Coq: - verification of the Alternating Bit Protocol}, - editorS = {S. Berardi and M. Coppo}, - publisher = SV, - year = {1995} -} - -@InProceedings{Gir70, - author = {J.-Y. Girard}, - booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2nd Scandinavian Logic Symposium}, - publisher = {North-Holland}, - title = {Une extension de l'interpr\'etation de {G\"odel} \`a l'analyse, et son application \`a l'\'elimination des coupures dans l'analyse et la th\'eorie des types}, - year = {1970} -} - -@PhDThesis{Gir72, - author = {J.-Y. Girard}, - school = {Universit\'e Paris~7}, - title = {Interpr\'etation fonctionnelle et \'elimination des coupures de l'arithm\'etique d'ordre sup\'erieur}, - year = {1972} -} - -@Book{Gir89, - author = {J.-Y. Girard and Y. Lafont and P. Taylor}, - publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, - series = {Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science 7}, - title = {Proofs and Types}, - year = {1989} -} - -@TechReport{Har95, - author = {John Harrison}, - title = {Metatheory and Reflection in Theorem Proving: A Survey and Critique}, - institution = {SRI International Cambridge Computer Science Research Centre,}, - year = 1995, - type = {Technical Report}, - number = {CRC-053}, - abstract = {http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/jrh/papers.html} -} - -@MastersThesis{Hir94, - author = {D. Hirschkoff}, - month = sep, - school = {DEA IARFA, Ecole des Ponts et Chauss\'ees, Paris}, - title = {Écriture d'une tactique arithm\'etique pour le syst\`eme {\Coq}}, - year = {1994} -} - -@InProceedings{HofStr98, - author = {Martin Hofmann and Thomas Streicher}, - title = {The groupoid interpretation of type theory}, - booktitle = {Proceedings of the meeting Twenty-five years of constructive type theory}, - publisher = {Oxford University Press}, - year = {1998} -} - -@InCollection{How80, - author = {W.A. Howard}, - booktitle = {to H.B. Curry : Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus and Formalism.}, - editor = {J.P. Seldin and J.R. Hindley}, - note = {Unpublished 1969 Manuscript}, - publisher = {Academic Press}, - title = {The Formulae-as-Types Notion of Constructions}, - year = {1980} -} - -@InProceedings{Hue87tapsoft, - author = {G. Huet}, - title = {Programming of Future Generation Computers}, - booktitle = {Proceedings of TAPSOFT87}, - series = LNCS, - volume = 249, - pages = {276--286}, - year = 1987, - publisher = SV -} - -@InProceedings{Hue87, - author = {G. Huet}, - booktitle = {Programming of Future Generation Computers}, - editor = {K. Fuchi and M. Nivat}, - note = {Also in \cite{Hue87tapsoft}}, - publisher = {Elsevier Science}, - title = {Induction Principles Formalized in the {Calculus of Constructions}}, - year = {1988} -} - -@InProceedings{Hue88, - author = {G. Huet}, - booktitle = {A perspective in Theoretical Computer Science. Commemorative Volume for Gift Siromoney}, - editor = {R. Narasimhan}, - note = {Also in~\cite{CoC89}}, - publisher = {World Scientific Publishing}, - title = {{The Constructive Engine}}, - year = {1989} -} - -@Unpublished{Hue88b, - author = {G. Huet}, - title = {Extending the Calculus of Constructions with Type:Type}, - year = 1988, - note = {Unpublished} -} - -@Book{Hue89, - editor = {G. Huet}, - publisher = {Addison-Wesley}, - series = {The UT Year of Programming Series}, - title = {Logical Foundations of Functional Programming}, - year = {1989} -} - -@InProceedings{Hue92, - author = {G. Huet}, - booktitle = {Proceedings of 12th FST/TCS Conference, New Delhi}, - pages = {229--240}, - publisher = SV, - series = LNCS, - title = {The Gallina Specification Language : A case study}, - volume = {652}, - year = {1992} -} - -@Article{Hue94, - author = {G. Huet}, - journal = {J. Functional Programming}, - pages = {371--394}, - publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, - title = {Residual theory in $\lambda$-calculus: a formal development}, - volume = {4,3}, - year = {1994} -} - -@InCollection{HuetLevy79, - author = {G. Huet and J.-J. L\'{e}vy}, - title = {Call by Need Computations in Non-Ambigous -Linear Term Rewriting Systems}, - note = {Also research report 359, INRIA, 1979}, - booktitle = {Computational Logic, Essays in Honor of -Alan Robinson}, - editor = {J.-L. Lassez and G. Plotkin}, - publisher = {The MIT press}, - year = {1991} -} - -@Article{KeWe84, - author = {J. Ketonen and R. Weyhrauch}, - journal = {Theoretical Computer Science}, - pages = {297--307}, - title = {A decidable fragment of {P}redicate {C}alculus}, - volume = {32}, - year = {1984} -} - -@Book{Kle52, - author = {S.C. Kleene}, - publisher = {North-Holland}, - series = {Bibliotheca Mathematica}, - title = {Introduction to Metamathematics}, - year = {1952} -} - -@Book{Kri90, - author = {J.-L. Krivine}, - publisher = {Masson}, - series = {Etudes et recherche en informatique}, - title = {Lambda-calcul {types et mod\`eles}}, - year = {1990} -} - -@Book{LE92, - editor = {G. Huet and G. Plotkin}, - publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, - title = {Logical Environments}, - year = {1992} -} - -@Book{LF91, - editor = {G. Huet and G. Plotkin}, - publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, - title = {Logical Frameworks}, - year = {1991} -} - -@Article{Laville91, - author = {A. Laville}, - title = {Comparison of Priority Rules in Pattern -Matching and Term Rewriting}, - journal = {Journal of Symbolic Computation}, - volume = {11}, - pages = {321--347}, - year = {1991} -} - -@InProceedings{LePa94, - author = {F. Leclerc and C. Paulin-Mohring}, - booktitle = {{Types for Proofs and Programs, Types' 93}}, - editor = {H. Barendregt and T. Nipkow}, - publisher = SV, - series = {LNCS}, - title = {{Programming with Streams in Coq. A case study : The Sieve of Eratosthenes}}, - volume = {806}, - year = {1994} -} - -@TechReport{Leroy90, - author = {X. Leroy}, - title = {The {ZINC} experiment: an economical implementation -of the {ML} language}, - institution = {INRIA}, - number = {117}, - year = {1990} -} - -@InProceedings{Let02, - author = {P. Letouzey}, - title = {A New Extraction for Coq}, - booktitle = {TYPES}, - year = 2002, - crossref = {DBLP:conf/types/2002}, - url = {draft at \url{http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~letouzey/download/extraction2002.ps.gz}} -} - -@PhDThesis{Luo90, - author = {Z. Luo}, - title = {An Extended Calculus of Constructions}, - school = {University of Edinburgh}, - year = {1990} -} - -@inproceedings{Luttik97specificationof, - Author = {Sebastiaan P. Luttik and Eelco Visser}, - Booktitle = {2nd International Workshop on the Theory and Practice of Algebraic Specifications (ASF+SDF'97), Electronic Workshops in Computing}, - Publisher = {Springer-Verlag}, - Title = {Specification of Rewriting Strategies}, - Year = {1997}} - -@Book{MaL84, - author = {{P. Martin-L\"of}}, - publisher = {Bibliopolis}, - series = {Studies in Proof Theory}, - title = {Intuitionistic Type Theory}, - year = {1984} -} - -@Article{MaSi94, - author = {P. Manoury and M. Simonot}, - title = {Automatizing Termination Proofs of Recursively Defined Functions.}, - journal = {TCS}, - volume = {135}, - number = {2}, - year = {1994}, - pages = {319-343}, -} - -@InProceedings{Miquel00, - author = {A. Miquel}, - title = {A Model for Impredicative Type Systems with Universes, -Intersection Types and Subtyping}, - booktitle = {{Proceedings of the 15th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS'00)}}, - publisher = {IEEE Computer Society Press}, - year = {2000} -} - -@PhDThesis{Miquel01a, - author = {A. Miquel}, - title = {Le Calcul des Constructions implicite: syntaxe et s\'emantique}, - month = {dec}, - school = {{Universit\'e Paris 7}}, - year = {2001} -} - -@InProceedings{Miquel01b, - author = {A. Miquel}, - title = {The Implicit Calculus of Constructions: Extending Pure Type Systems with an Intersection Type Binder and Subtyping}, - booktitle = {{Proceedings of the fifth International Conference on Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications (TLCA01), Krakow, Poland}}, - publisher = SV, - series = {LNCS}, - number = 2044, - year = {2001} -} - -@InProceedings{MiWer02, - author = {A. Miquel and B. Werner}, - title = {The Not So Simple Proof-Irrelevant Model of CC}, - booktitle = {TYPES}, - year = {2002}, - pages = {240-258}, - ee = {http://link.springer.de/link/service/series/0558/bibs/2646/26460240.htm}, - crossref = {DBLP:conf/types/2002}, - bibsource = {DBLP, http://dblp.uni-trier.de} -} - -@proceedings{DBLP:conf/types/2002, - editor = {H. Geuvers and F. Wiedijk}, - title = {Types for Proofs and Programs, Second International Workshop, - TYPES 2002, Berg en Dal, The Netherlands, April 24-28, 2002, - Selected Papers}, - booktitle = {TYPES}, - publisher = SV, - series = LNCS, - volume = {2646}, - year = {2003}, - isbn = {3-540-14031-X}, - bibsource = {DBLP, http://dblp.uni-trier.de} -} - -@InProceedings{Moh89a, - author = {C. Paulin-Mohring}, - address = {Austin}, - booktitle = {Sixteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages}, - month = jan, - publisher = {ACM}, - title = {Extracting ${F}_{\omega}$'s programs from proofs in the {Calculus of Constructions}}, - year = {1989} -} - -@PhDThesis{Moh89b, - author = {C. Paulin-Mohring}, - month = jan, - school = {{Universit\'e Paris 7}}, - title = {Extraction de programmes dans le {Calcul des Constructions}}, - year = {1989} -} - -@InProceedings{Moh93, - author = {C. Paulin-Mohring}, - booktitle = {Proceedings of the conference Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications}, - editor = {M. Bezem and J.-F. Groote}, - note = {Also LIP research report 92-49, ENS Lyon}, - number = {664}, - publisher = SV, - series = {LNCS}, - title = {{Inductive Definitions in the System Coq - Rules and Properties}}, - year = {1993} -} - -@Book{Moh97, - author = {C. Paulin-Mohring}, - month = jan, - publisher = {{ENS Lyon}}, - title = {{Le syst\`eme Coq. \mbox{Th\`ese d'habilitation}}}, - year = {1997} -} - -@MastersThesis{Mun94, - author = {C. Muñoz}, - month = sep, - school = {DEA d'Informatique Fondamentale, Universit\'e Paris 7}, - title = {D\'emonstration automatique dans la logique propositionnelle intuitionniste}, - year = {1994} -} - -@PhDThesis{Mun97d, - author = {C. Mu{\~{n}}oz}, - title = {Un calcul de substitutions pour la repr\'esentation - de preuves partielles en th\'eorie de types}, - school = {Universit\'e Paris 7}, - year = {1997}, - note = {Version en anglais disponible comme rapport de - recherche INRIA RR-3309}, - type = {Th\`ese de Doctorat} -} - -@Book{NoPS90, - author = {B. {Nordstr\"om} and K. Peterson and J. Smith}, - booktitle = {Information Processing 83}, - publisher = {Oxford Science Publications}, - series = {International Series of Monographs on Computer Science}, - title = {Programming in {Martin-L\"of's} Type Theory}, - year = {1990} -} - -@Article{Nor88, - author = {B. {Nordstr\"om}}, - journal = {BIT}, - title = {Terminating General Recursion}, - volume = {28}, - year = {1988} -} - -@Book{Odi90, - editor = {P. Odifreddi}, - publisher = {Academic Press}, - title = {Logic and Computer Science}, - year = {1990} -} - -@InProceedings{PaMS92, - author = {M. Parigot and P. Manoury and M. Simonot}, - address = {St. Petersburg, Russia}, - booktitle = {Logic Programming and automated reasoning}, - editor = {A. Voronkov}, - month = jul, - number = {624}, - publisher = SV, - series = {LNCS}, - title = {{ProPre : A Programming language with proofs}}, - year = {1992} -} - -@Article{PaWe92, - author = {C. Paulin-Mohring and B. Werner}, - journal = {Journal of Symbolic Computation}, - pages = {607--640}, - title = {{Synthesis of ML programs in the system Coq}}, - volume = {15}, - year = {1993} -} - -@Article{Par92, - author = {M. Parigot}, - journal = {Theoretical Computer Science}, - number = {2}, - pages = {335--356}, - title = {{Recursive Programming with Proofs}}, - volume = {94}, - year = {1992} -} - -@InProceedings{Parent95b, - author = {C. Parent}, - booktitle = {{Mathematics of Program Construction'95}}, - publisher = SV, - series = {LNCS}, - title = {{Synthesizing proofs from programs in -the Calculus of Inductive Constructions}}, - volume = {947}, - year = {1995} -} - -@InProceedings{Prasad93, - author = {K.V. Prasad}, - booktitle = {{Proceedings of CONCUR'93}}, - publisher = SV, - series = {LNCS}, - title = {{Programming with broadcasts}}, - volume = {715}, - year = {1993} -} - -@Book{RC95, - author = {di~Cosmo, R.}, - title = {Isomorphisms of Types: from $\lambda$-calculus to information - retrieval and language design}, - series = {Progress in Theoretical Computer Science}, - publisher = {Birkhauser}, - year = {1995}, - note = {ISBN-0-8176-3763-X} -} - -@TechReport{Rou92, - author = {J. Rouyer}, - institution = {INRIA}, - month = nov, - number = {1795}, - title = {{Développement de l'Algorithme d'Unification dans le Calcul des Constructions}}, - year = {1992} -} - -@Article{Rushby98, - title = {Subtypes for Specifications: Predicate Subtyping in - {PVS}}, - author = {John Rushby and Sam Owre and N. Shankar}, - journal = {IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering}, - pages = {709--720}, - volume = 24, - number = 9, - month = sep, - year = 1998 -} - -@TechReport{Saibi94, - author = {A. Sa\"{\i}bi}, - institution = {INRIA}, - month = dec, - number = {2345}, - title = {{Axiomatization of a lambda-calculus with explicit-substitutions in the Coq System}}, - year = {1994} -} - - -@MastersThesis{Ter92, - author = {D. Terrasse}, - month = sep, - school = {IARFA}, - title = {{Traduction de TYPOL en COQ. Application \`a Mini ML}}, - year = {1992} -} - -@TechReport{ThBeKa92, - author = {L. Th\'ery and Y. Bertot and G. Kahn}, - institution = {INRIA Sophia}, - month = may, - number = {1684}, - title = {Real theorem provers deserve real user-interfaces}, - type = {Research Report}, - year = {1992} -} - -@Book{TrDa89, - author = {A.S. Troelstra and D. van Dalen}, - publisher = {North-Holland}, - series = {Studies in Logic and the foundations of Mathematics, volumes 121 and 123}, - title = {Constructivism in Mathematics, an introduction}, - year = {1988} -} - -@PhDThesis{Wer94, - author = {B. Werner}, - school = {Universit\'e Paris 7}, - title = {Une th\'eorie des constructions inductives}, - type = {Th\`ese de Doctorat}, - year = {1994} -} - -@PhDThesis{Bar99, - author = {B. Barras}, - school = {Universit\'e Paris 7}, - title = {Auto-validation d'un système de preuves avec familles inductives}, - type = {Th\`ese de Doctorat}, - year = {1999} -} - -@Unpublished{ddr98, - author = {D. de Rauglaudre}, - title = {Camlp4 version 1.07.2}, - year = {1998}, - note = {In Camlp4 distribution} -} - -@Article{dowek93, - author = {G. Dowek}, - title = {{A Complete Proof Synthesis Method for the Cube of Type Systems}}, - journal = {Journal Logic Computation}, - volume = {3}, - number = {3}, - pages = {287--315}, - month = {June}, - year = {1993} -} - -@InProceedings{manoury94, - author = {P. Manoury}, - title = {{A User's Friendly Syntax to Define -Recursive Functions as Typed $\lambda-$Terms}}, - booktitle = {{Types for Proofs and Programs, TYPES'94}}, - series = {LNCS}, - volume = {996}, - month = jun, - year = {1994} -} - -@TechReport{maranget94, - author = {L. Maranget}, - institution = {INRIA}, - number = {2385}, - title = {{Two Techniques for Compiling Lazy Pattern Matching}}, - year = {1994} -} - -@InProceedings{puel-suarez90, - author = {L.Puel and A. Su\'arez}, - booktitle = {{Conference Lisp and Functional Programming}}, - series = {ACM}, - publisher = SV, - title = {{Compiling Pattern Matching by Term -Decomposition}}, - year = {1990} -} - -@MastersThesis{saidi94, - author = {H. Saidi}, - month = sep, - school = {DEA d'Informatique Fondamentale, Universit\'e Paris 7}, - title = {R\'esolution d'\'equations dans le syst\`eme T - de G\"odel}, - year = {1994} -} - -@inproceedings{sozeau06, - author = {Matthieu Sozeau}, - title = {Subset Coercions in {C}oq}, - year = {2007}, - booktitle = {TYPES'06}, - pages = {237-252}, - volume = {4502}, - publisher = "Springer", - series = {LNCS} -} - -@inproceedings{sozeau08, - Author = {Matthieu Sozeau and Nicolas Oury}, - booktitle = {TPHOLs'08}, - Pdf = {http://www.lri.fr/~sozeau/research/publications/drafts/classes.pdf}, - Title = {{F}irst-{C}lass {T}ype {C}lasses}, - Year = {2008}, -} - -@Misc{streicher93semantical, - author = {T. Streicher}, - title = {Semantical Investigations into Intensional Type Theory}, - note = {Habilitationsschrift, LMU Munchen.}, - year = {1993} -} - -@Misc{Pcoq, - author = {Lemme Team}, - title = {Pcoq a graphical user-interface for {Coq}}, - note = {\url{http://www-sop.inria.fr/lemme/pcoq/}} -} - -@Misc{ProofGeneral, - author = {David Aspinall}, - title = {Proof General}, - note = {\url{https://proofgeneral.github.io/}} -} - -@Book{CoqArt, - title = {Interactive Theorem Proving and Program Development. - Coq'Art: The Calculus of Inductive Constructions}, - author = {Yves Bertot and Pierre Castéran}, - publisher = {Springer Verlag}, - series = {Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS series}, - year = 2004 -} - -@InCollection{wadler87, - author = {P. Wadler}, - title = {Efficient Compilation of Pattern Matching}, - booktitle = {The Implementation of Functional Programming -Languages}, - editor = {S.L. Peyton Jones}, - publisher = {Prentice-Hall}, - year = {1987} -} - -@inproceedings{DBLP:conf/types/CornesT95, - author = {Cristina Cornes and - Delphine Terrasse}, - title = {Automating Inversion of Inductive Predicates in Coq}, - booktitle = {TYPES}, - year = {1995}, - pages = {85-104}, - crossref = {DBLP:conf/types/1995}, - bibsource = {DBLP, http://dblp.uni-trier.de} -} -@proceedings{DBLP:conf/types/1995, - editor = {Stefano Berardi and - Mario Coppo}, - title = {Types for Proofs and Programs, International Workshop TYPES'95, - Torino, Italy, June 5-8, 1995, Selected Papers}, - booktitle = {TYPES}, - publisher = {Springer}, - series = {Lecture Notes in Computer Science}, - volume = {1158}, - year = {1996}, - isbn = {3-540-61780-9}, - bibsource = {DBLP, http://dblp.uni-trier.de} -} - -@inproceedings{DBLP:conf/types/McBride00, - author = {Conor McBride}, - title = {Elimination with a Motive}, - booktitle = {TYPES}, - year = {2000}, - pages = {197-216}, - ee = {http://link.springer.de/link/service/series/0558/bibs/2277/22770197.htm}, - crossref = {DBLP:conf/types/2000}, - bibsource = {DBLP, http://dblp.uni-trier.de} -} - -@proceedings{DBLP:conf/types/2000, - editor = {Paul Callaghan and - Zhaohui Luo and - James McKinna and - Robert Pollack}, - title = {Types for Proofs and Programs, International Workshop, TYPES - 2000, Durham, UK, December 8-12, 2000, Selected Papers}, - booktitle = {TYPES}, - publisher = {Springer}, - series = {Lecture Notes in Computer Science}, - volume = {2277}, - year = {2002}, - isbn = {3-540-43287-6}, - bibsource = {DBLP, http://dblp.uni-trier.de} -} - -@INPROCEEDINGS{sugar, - author = {Alessandro Giovini and Teo Mora and Gianfranco Niesi and Lorenzo Robbiano and Carlo Traverso}, - title = {"One sugar cube, please" or Selection strategies in the Buchberger algorithm}, - booktitle = { Proceedings of the ISSAC'91, ACM Press}, - year = {1991}, - pages = {5--4}, - publisher = {} -} - -@article{LeeWerner11, - author = {Gyesik Lee and - Benjamin Werner}, - title = {Proof-irrelevant model of {CC} with predicative induction - and judgmental equality}, - journal = {Logical Methods in Computer Science}, - volume = {7}, - number = {4}, - year = {2011}, - ee = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2168/LMCS-7(4:5)2011}, - bibsource = {DBLP, http://dblp.uni-trier.de} -} - -@Comment{cross-references, must be at end} - -@Book{Bastad92, - editor = {B. Nordstr\"om and K. Petersson and G. Plotkin}, - publisher = {Available by ftp at site ftp.inria.fr}, - title = {Proceedings of the 1992 Workshop on Types for Proofs and Programs}, - year = {1992} -} - -@Book{Nijmegen93, - editor = {H. Barendregt and T. Nipkow}, - publisher = SV, - series = LNCS, - title = {Types for Proofs and Programs}, - volume = {806}, - year = {1994} -} - -@article{ TheOmegaPaper, - author = "W. Pugh", - title = "The Omega test: a fast and practical integer programming algorithm for dependence analysis", - journal = "Communication of the ACM", - pages = "102--114", - year = "1992", -} - -@inproceedings{CSwcu, - hal_id = {hal-00816703}, - url = {http://hal.inria.fr/hal-00816703}, - title = {{Canonical Structures for the working Coq user}}, - author = {Mahboubi, Assia and Tassi, Enrico}, - booktitle = {{ITP 2013, 4th Conference on Interactive Theorem Proving}}, - publisher = {Springer}, - pages = {19-34}, - address = {Rennes, France}, - volume = {7998}, - editor = {Sandrine Blazy and Christine Paulin and David Pichardie }, - series = {LNCS }, - doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-39634-2\_5 }, - year = {2013}, -} - -@article{CSlessadhoc, - author = {Gonthier, Georges and Ziliani, Beta and Nanevski, Aleksandar and Dreyer, Derek}, - title = {How to Make Ad Hoc Proof Automation Less Ad Hoc}, - journal = {SIGPLAN Not.}, - issue_date = {September 2011}, - volume = {46}, - number = {9}, - month = sep, - year = {2011}, - issn = {0362-1340}, - pages = {163--175}, - numpages = {13}, - url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2034574.2034798}, - doi = {10.1145/2034574.2034798}, - acmid = {2034798}, - publisher = {ACM}, - address = {New York, NY, USA}, - keywords = {canonical structures, coq, custom proof automation, hoare type theory, interactive theorem proving, tactics, type classes}, -} - -@inproceedings{CompiledStrongReduction, - author = {Benjamin Gr{\'{e}}goire and - Xavier Leroy}, - editor = {Mitchell Wand and - Simon L. Peyton Jones}, - title = {A compiled implementation of strong reduction}, - booktitle = {Proceedings of the Seventh {ACM} {SIGPLAN} International Conference - on Functional Programming {(ICFP} '02), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, - USA, October 4-6, 2002.}, - pages = {235--246}, - publisher = {{ACM}}, - year = {2002}, - url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/581478.581501}, - doi = {10.1145/581478.581501}, - timestamp = {Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:49:16 +0200}, - biburl = {http://dblp.uni-trier.de/rec/bib/conf/icfp/GregoireL02}, - bibsource = {dblp computer science bibliography, http://dblp.org} -} - -@inproceedings{FullReduction, - author = {Mathieu Boespflug and - Maxime D{\'{e}}n{\`{e}}s and - Benjamin Gr{\'{e}}goire}, - editor = {Jean{-}Pierre Jouannaud and - Zhong Shao}, - title = {Full Reduction at Full Throttle}, - booktitle = {Certified Programs and Proofs - First International Conference, {CPP} - 2011, Kenting, Taiwan, December 7-9, 2011. Proceedings}, - series = {Lecture Notes in Computer Science}, - volume = {7086}, - pages = {362--377}, - publisher = {Springer}, - year = {2011}, - url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25379-9_26}, - doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-25379-9_26}, - timestamp = {Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:33:48 +0100}, - biburl = {http://dblp.uni-trier.de/rec/bib/conf/cpp/BoespflugDG11}, - bibsource = {dblp computer science bibliography, http://dblp.org} -} diff --git a/doc/refman/coq-listing.tex b/doc/refman/coq-listing.tex deleted file mode 100644 index c69c3b1b81..0000000000 --- a/doc/refman/coq-listing.tex +++ /dev/null @@ -1,152 +0,0 @@ -%======================================================================= -% Listings LaTeX package style for Gallina + SSReflect (Assia Mahboubi 2007) - -\lstdefinelanguage{SSR} { - -% Anything betweeen $ becomes LaTeX math mode -mathescape=true, -% Comments may or not include Latex commands -texcl=false, - - -% Vernacular commands -morekeywords=[1]{ -From, Section, Module, End, Require, Import, Export, Defensive, Function, -Variable, Variables, Parameter, Parameters, Axiom, Hypothesis, Hypotheses, -Notation, Local, Tactic, Reserved, Scope, Open, Close, Bind, Delimit, -Definition, Let, Ltac, Fixpoint, CoFixpoint, Add, Morphism, Relation, -Implicit, Arguments, Set, Unset, Contextual, Strict, Prenex, Implicits, -Inductive, CoInductive, Record, Structure, Canonical, Coercion, -Theorem, Lemma, Corollary, Proposition, Fact, Remark, Example, -Proof, Goal, Save, Qed, Defined, Hint, Resolve, Rewrite, View, -Search, Show, Print, Printing, All, Graph, Projections, inside, -outside, Locate, Maximal}, - -% Gallina -morekeywords=[2]{forall, exists, exists2, fun, fix, cofix, struct, - match, with, end, as, in, return, let, if, is, then, else, - for, of, nosimpl}, - -% Sorts -morekeywords=[3]{Type, Prop}, - -% Various tactics, some are std Coq subsumed by ssr, for the manual purpose -morekeywords=[4]{ - pose, set, move, case, elim, apply, clear, - hnf, intro, intros, generalize, rename, pattern, after, - destruct, induction, using, refine, inversion, injection, - rewrite, congr, unlock, compute, ring, field, - replace, fold, unfold, change, cutrewrite, simpl, - have, gen, generally, suff, wlog, suffices, without, loss, nat_norm, - assert, cut, trivial, revert, bool_congr, nat_congr, abstract, - symmetry, transitivity, auto, split, left, right, autorewrite}, - -% Terminators -morekeywords=[5]{ - by, done, exact, reflexivity, tauto, romega, omega, - assumption, solve, contradiction, discriminate}, - - -% Control -morekeywords=[6]{do, last, first, try, idtac, repeat}, - -% Various symbols -% For the ssr manual we turn off the prettyprint of formulas -% literate= -% {->}{{$\rightarrow\,$}}2 -% {->}{{\tt ->}}3 -% {<-}{{$\leftarrow\,$}}2 -% {<-}{{\tt <-}}2 -% {>->}{{$\mapsto$}}3 -% {<=}{{$\leq$}}1 -% {>=}{{$\geq$}}1 -% {<>}{{$\neq$}}1 -% {/\\}{{$\wedge$}}2 -% {\\/}{{$\vee$}}2 -% {<->}{{$\leftrightarrow\;$}}3 -% {<=>}{{$\Leftrightarrow\;$}}3 -% {:nat}{{$~\in\mathbb{N}$}}3 -% {fforall\ }{{$\forall_f\,$}}1 -% {forall\ }{{$\forall\,$}}1 -% {exists\ }{{$\exists\,$}}1 -% {negb}{{$\neg$}}1 -% {spp}{{:*:\,}}1 -% {~}{{$\sim$}}1 -% {\\in}{{$\in\;$}}1 -% {/\\}{$\land\,$}1 -% {:*:}{{$*$}}2 -% {=>}{{$\,\Rightarrow\ $}}1 -% {=>}{{\tt =>}}2 -% {:=}{{{\tt:=}\,\,}}2 -% {==}{{$\equiv$}\,}2 -% {!=}{{$\neq$}\,}2 -% {^-1}{{$^{-1}$}}1 -% {elt'}{elt'}1 -% {=}{{\tt=}\,\,}2 -% {+}{{\tt+}\,\,}2, -literate= - {isn't }{{{\ttfamily\color{dkgreen} isn't }}}1, - -% Comments delimiters, we do turn this off for the manual -%comment=[s]{(*}{*)}, - -% Spaces are not displayed as a special character -showstringspaces=false, - -% String delimiters -morestring=[b]", -morestring=[d]", - -% Size of tabulations -tabsize=3, - -% Enables ASCII chars 128 to 255 -extendedchars=true, - -% Case sensitivity -sensitive=true, - -% Automatic breaking of long lines -breaklines=true, - -% Default style fors listings -basicstyle=\ttfamily, - -% Position of captions is bottom -captionpos=b, - -% Full flexible columns -columns=[l]fullflexible, - -% Style for (listings') identifiers -identifierstyle={\ttfamily\color{black}}, -% Note : highlighting of Coq identifiers is done through a new -% delimiter definition through an lstset at the begining of the -% document. Don't know how to do better. - -% Style for declaration keywords -keywordstyle=[1]{\ttfamily\color{dkviolet}}, - -% Style for gallina keywords -keywordstyle=[2]{\ttfamily\color{dkgreen}}, - -% Style for sorts keywords -keywordstyle=[3]{\ttfamily\color{lightblue}}, - -% Style for tactics keywords -keywordstyle=[4]{\ttfamily\color{dkblue}}, - -% Style for terminators keywords -keywordstyle=[5]{\ttfamily\color{red}}, - - -%Style for iterators -keywordstyle=[6]{\ttfamily\color{dkpink}}, - -% Style for strings -stringstyle=\ttfamily, - -% Style for comments -commentstyle=\rmfamily, - -} diff --git a/doc/refman/coqide-queries.png b/doc/refman/coqide-queries.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 7a46ac4e68..0000000000 --- a/doc/refman/coqide-queries.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/doc/refman/coqide.png b/doc/refman/coqide.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index e300401c9f..0000000000 --- a/doc/refman/coqide.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/doc/refman/headers.hva b/doc/refman/headers.hva deleted file mode 100644 index 9714a29beb..0000000000 --- a/doc/refman/headers.hva +++ /dev/null @@ -1,44 +0,0 @@ -%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% -% File headers.hva -% Hevea version of headers.sty -%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% - -%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% -% Commands for indexes -%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% -\usepackage{index} -\makeindex - - -\newindex{tactic}{tacidx}{tacind}{Tactics Index} -\newindex{command}{comidx}{comind}{Vernacular Commands Index} -\newindex{option}{optidx}{optind}{Vernacular Options Index} -\newindex{error}{erridx}{errind}{Index of Error Messages} -\renewindex{default}{idx}{ind}{Global Index} - -\newcommand{\printrefmanindex}[3]{% -\addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{#2}% -\printindex[#1]% -\cutname{#3}% -} - -\newcommand{\tacindex}[1]{% -\index{#1@\texttt{#1}}\index[tactic]{#1@\texttt{#1}}} -\newcommand{\comindex}[1]{% -\index{#1@\texttt{#1}}\index[command]{#1@\texttt{#1}}} -\newcommand{\optindex}[1]{% -\index{#1@\texttt{#1}}\index[option]{#1@\texttt{#1}}} -\newcommand{\errindex}[1]{\texttt{#1}\index[error]{#1}} -\newcommand{\errindexbis}[2]{\texttt{#1}\index[error]{#2}} -\newcommand{\ttindex}[1]{\index{#1@\texttt{#1}}} - -%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% -% For the Addendum table of contents -%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% -\newcommand{\aauthor}[1]{{\LARGE \bf #1} \bigskip} % 3 \bigskip's that were here originally - % may be good for LaTeX but too much for HTML -\newcommand{\atableofcontents}{} -\newcommand{\achapter}[1]{\chapter{#1}} -\newcommand{\asection}{\section} -\newcommand{\asubsection}{\subsection} -\newcommand{\asubsubsection}{\subsubsection} diff --git a/doc/refman/headers.sty b/doc/refman/headers.sty deleted file mode 100644 index fb39f687d7..0000000000 --- a/doc/refman/headers.sty +++ /dev/null @@ -1,88 +0,0 @@ -%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% -% File headers.sty -% Commands for pretty headers, multiple indexes, and the appendix. -%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% -\usepackage{fancyhdr} - -\setlength{\headheight}{14pt} - -\pagestyle{fancyplain} - -\newcommand{\coqfooter}{\tiny Coq Reference Manual, V\coqversion{}, \today} - -\cfoot{} -\lfoot[{\coqfooter}]{} -\rfoot[]{{\coqfooter}} - -\newcommand{\setheaders}[1]{\rhead[\fancyplain{}{\textbf{#1}}]{\fancyplain{}{\thepage}}\lhead[\fancyplain{}{\thepage}]{\fancyplain{}{\textbf{#1}}}} -\newcommand{\defaultheaders}{\rhead[\fancyplain{}{\leftmark}]{\fancyplain{}{\thepage}}\lhead[\fancyplain{}{\thepage}]{\fancyplain{}{\rightmark}}} - -\renewcommand{\chaptermark}[1]{\markboth{{\bf \thechapter~#1}}{}} -\renewcommand{\sectionmark}[1]{\markright{\thesection~#1}} -\renewcommand{\contentsname}{% -\protect\setheaders{Table of contents}Table of contents} -\renewcommand{\bibname}{\protect\setheaders{Bibliography}% -\protect\RefManCutCommand{BEGINBIBLIO=\thepage}% -\protect\addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{Bibliography}Bibliography} - -%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% -% Commands for indexes -%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% -\usepackage{index} -\makeindex - -\newindex{tactic}{tacidx}{tacind}{Tactics Index} -\newindex{command}{comidx}{comind}{Vernacular Commands Index} -\newindex{option}{optidx}{optind}{Vernacular Options Index} -\newindex{error}{erridx}{errind}{Index of Error Messages} -\renewindex{default}{idx}{ind}{Global Index} - -\newcommand{\printrefmanindex}[3]{% -\cleardoublepage% -\phantomsection% -\setheaders{#2}% -\addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{#2}% -\printindex[#1]% -\cutname{#3}% -} - -\newcommand{\tacindex}[1]{% -\index{#1@\texttt{#1}}\index[tactic]{#1@\texttt{#1}}} -\newcommand{\comindex}[1]{% -\index{#1@\texttt{#1}}\index[command]{#1@\texttt{#1}}} -\newcommand{\optindex}[1]{% -\index{#1@\texttt{#1}}\index[option]{#1@\texttt{#1}}} -\newcommand{\errindex}[1]{\texttt{#1}\index[error]{#1}} -\newcommand{\errindexbis}[2]{\texttt{#1}\index[error]{#2}} -\newcommand{\ttindex}[1]{\index{#1@\texttt{#1}}} - -%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% -% For the Addendum table of contents -%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% -\newcommand{\aauthor}[1]{{\LARGE \bf #1} \bigskip \bigskip \bigskip} -\newcommand{\atableofcontents}{\section*{Contents}\@starttoc{atoc}} -\newcommand{\achapter}[1]{ - \chapter{#1}\addcontentsline{atoc}{chapter}{#1}} -\newcommand{\asection}[1]{ - \section{#1}\addcontentsline{atoc}{section}{#1}} -\newcommand{\asubsection}[1]{ - \subsection{#1}\addcontentsline{atoc}{subsection}{#1}} -\newcommand{\asubsubsection}[1]{ - \subsubsection{#1}\addcontentsline{atoc}{subsubsection}{#1}} - -%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% -% Reference-Manual.sh is generated to cut the Postscript -%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% -%\@starttoc{sh} -\newwrite\RefManCut@out% -\immediate\openout\RefManCut@out\jobname.sh -\newcommand{\RefManCutCommand}[1]{% -\immediate\write\RefManCut@out{#1}} -\newcommand{\RefManCutClose}{% -\immediate\closeout\RefManCut@out} - - -%%% Local Variables: -%%% mode: latex -%%% TeX-master: "Reference-Manual" -%%% End: diff --git a/doc/refman/index.html b/doc/refman/index.html deleted file mode 100644 index b937350e6e..0000000000 --- a/doc/refman/index.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,14 +0,0 @@ -<HTML> - -<HEAD> - -<TITLE>The Coq Proof Assistant Reference Manual</TITLE> - -</HEAD> - -<FRAMESET ROWS=90%,*> - <FRAME SRC="cover.html" NAME="UP"> - <FRAME SRC="menu.html"> -</FRAMESET> - -</HTML> diff --git a/doc/refman/menu.html b/doc/refman/menu.html deleted file mode 100644 index 7312ad344c..0000000000 --- a/doc/refman/menu.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,32 +0,0 @@ -<HTML> - -<BODY> - -<CENTER> - -<TABLE BORDER="0" CELLPADDING=10> -<TR> -<TD><CENTER><A HREF="cover.html" TARGET="UP"><FONT SIZE=2>Cover page</FONT></A></CENTER></TD> -<TD><CENTER><A HREF="toc.html" TARGET="UP"><FONT SIZE=2>Table of contents</FONT></A></CENTER></TD> -<TD><CENTER><A HREF="biblio.html" TARGET="UP"><FONT SIZE=2> -Bibliography</FONT></A></CENTER></TD> -<TD><CENTER><A HREF="general-index.html" TARGET="UP"><FONT SIZE=2> -Global Index -</FONT></A></CENTER></TD> -<TD><CENTER><A HREF="tactic-index.html" TARGET="UP"><FONT SIZE=2> -Tactics Index -</FONT></A></CENTER></TD> -<TD><CENTER><A HREF="command-index.html" TARGET="UP"><FONT SIZE=2> -Vernacular Commands Index -</FONT></A></CENTER></TD> -<TD><CENTER><A HREF="option-index.html" TARGET="UP"><FONT SIZE=2> -Vernacular Options Index -</FONT></A></CENTER></TD> -<TD><CENTER><A HREF="error-index.html" TARGET="UP"><FONT SIZE=2> -Index of Error Messages -</FONT></A></CENTER></TD> -</TABLE> - -</CENTER> - -</BODY></HTML> |
