Match.v 51.5 KB
Newer Older
1
(* Copyright (c) 2008-2012, 2015, Adam Chlipala
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
 * 
 * This work is licensed under a
 * Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
 * Unported License.
 * The license text is available at:
 *   http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
 *)

(* begin hide *)
Require Import List.

13
Require Import Cpdt.CpdtTactics.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
14 15

Set Implicit Arguments.
16
Set Asymmetric Patterns.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
17 18 19
(* end hide *)


Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
20
(** %\chapter{Proof Search in Ltac}% *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
21

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
22
(** We have seen many examples of proof automation so far, some with tantalizing code snippets from Ltac, Coq's domain-specific language for proof search procedures.  This chapter aims to give a bottom-up presentation of the features of Ltac, focusing in particular on the Ltac %\index{tactics!match}%[match] construct, which supports a novel approach to backtracking search.  First, though, we will run through some useful automation tactics that are built into Coq.  They are described in detail in the manual, so we only outline what is possible. *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
23 24 25

(** * Some Built-In Automation Tactics *)

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
26
(** A number of tactics are called repeatedly by [crush].  The %\index{tactics!intuition}%[intuition] tactic simplifies propositional structure of goals.  The %\index{tactics!congruence}%[congruence] tactic applies the rules of equality and congruence closure, plus properties of constructors of inductive types.  The %\index{tactics!omega}%[omega] tactic provides a complete decision procedure for a theory that is called %\index{linear arithmetic}%quantifier-free linear arithmetic or %\index{Presburger arithmetic}%Presburger arithmetic, depending on whom you ask.  That is, [omega] proves any goal that follows from looking only at parts of that goal that can be interpreted as propositional formulas whose atomic formulas are basic comparison operations on natural numbers or integers, with operands built from constants, variables, addition, and subtraction (with multiplication by a constant available as a shorthand for addition or subtraction).
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
27

28
   The %\index{tactics!ring}%[ring] tactic solves goals by appealing to the axioms of rings or semi-rings (as in algebra), depending on the type involved.  Coq developments may declare new types to be parts of rings and semi-rings by proving the associated axioms.  There is a similar tactic [field] for simplifying values in fields by conversion to fractions over rings.  Both [ring] and [field] can only solve goals that are equalities.  The %\index{tactics!fourier}%[fourier] tactic uses Fourier's method to prove inequalities over real numbers, which are axiomatized in the Coq standard library.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
29

30
   The%\index{setoids}% _setoid_ facility makes it possible to register new equivalence relations to be understood by tactics like [rewrite].  For instance, [Prop] is registered as a setoid with the equivalence relation "if and only if."  The ability to register new setoids can be very useful in proofs of a kind common in math, where all reasoning is done after "modding out by a relation."
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
31

32
   There are several other built-in "black box" automation tactics, which one can learn about by perusing the Coq manual.  The real promise of Coq, though, is in the coding of problem-specific tactics with Ltac. *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
33 34


Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
35 36
(** * Ltac Programming Basics *)

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
37
(** We have already seen many examples of Ltac programs.  In the rest of this chapter, we attempt to give a thorough introduction to the important features and design patterns.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
38 39 40

   One common use for [match] tactics is identification of subjects for case analysis, as we see in this tactic definition. *)

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
41
(* begin thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
42 43 44 45
Ltac find_if :=
  match goal with
    | [ |- if ?X then _ else _ ] => destruct X
  end.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
46
(* end thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

(** The tactic checks if the conclusion is an [if], [destruct]ing the test expression if so.  Certain classes of theorem are trivial to prove automatically with such a tactic. *)

Theorem hmm : forall (a b c : bool),
  if a
    then if b
      then True
      else True
    else if c
      then True
      else True.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
58
(* begin thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
59 60
  intros; repeat find_if; constructor.
Qed.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
61
(* end thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
62

63
(** The %\index{tactics!repeat}%[repeat] that we use here is called a%\index{tactical}% _tactical_, or tactic combinator.  The behavior of [repeat t] is to loop through running [t], running [t] on all generated subgoals, running [t] on _their_ generated subgoals, and so on.  When [t] fails at any point in this search tree, that particular subgoal is left to be handled by later tactics.  Thus, it is important never to use [repeat] with a tactic that always succeeds.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
64

65
   Another very useful Ltac building block is%\index{context patterns}% _context patterns_. *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
66

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
67
(* begin thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
68 69 70 71
Ltac find_if_inside :=
  match goal with
    | [ |- context[if ?X then _ else _] ] => destruct X
  end.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
72
(* end thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83

(** The behavior of this tactic is to find any subterm of the conclusion that is an [if] and then [destruct] the test expression.  This version subsumes [find_if]. *)

Theorem hmm' : forall (a b c : bool),
  if a
    then if b
      then True
      else True
    else if c
      then True
      else True.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
84
(* begin thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
85 86
  intros; repeat find_if_inside; constructor.
Qed.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
87
(* end thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
88 89 90

(** We can also use [find_if_inside] to prove goals that [find_if] does not simplify sufficiently. *)

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
91
Theorem hmm2 : forall (a b : bool),
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
92
  (if a then 42 else 42) = (if b then 42 else 42).
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
93
(* begin thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
94 95
  intros; repeat find_if_inside; reflexivity.
Qed.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
96
(* end thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
97

98
(** Many decision procedures can be coded in Ltac via "[repeat match] loops."  For instance, we can implement a subset of the functionality of [tauto]. *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
99

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
100
(* begin thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112
Ltac my_tauto :=
  repeat match goal with
	   | [ H : ?P |- ?P ] => exact H

	   | [ |- True ] => constructor
	   | [ |- _ /\ _ ] => constructor
	   | [ |- _ -> _ ] => intro

	   | [ H : False |- _ ] => destruct H
	   | [ H : _ /\ _ |- _ ] => destruct H
	   | [ H : _ \/ _ |- _ ] => destruct H

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
113
	   | [ H1 : ?P -> ?Q, H2 : ?P |- _ ] => specialize (H1 H2)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
114
	 end.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
115
(* end thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
116

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
117
(** Since [match] patterns can share unification variables between hypothesis and conclusion patterns, it is easy to figure out when the conclusion matches a hypothesis.  The %\index{tactics!exact}%[exact] tactic solves a goal completely when given a proof term of the proper type.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
118

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
119
   It is also trivial to implement the introduction rules (in the sense of %\index{natural deduction}%natural deduction%~\cite{TAPLNatDed}%) for a few of the connectives.  Implementing elimination rules is only a little more work, since we must give a name for a hypothesis to [destruct].
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
120

121
   The last rule implements modus ponens, using a tactic %\index{tactics!specialize}%[specialize] which will replace a hypothesis with a version that is specialized to a provided set of arguments (for quantified variables or local hypotheses from implications).  By convention, when the argument to [specialize] is an application of a hypothesis [H] to a set of arguments, the result of the specialization replaces [H].  For other terms, the outcome is the same as with [generalize]. *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
122 123 124 125

Section propositional.
  Variables P Q R : Prop.

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
126
  Theorem propositional : (P \/ Q \/ False) /\ (P -> Q) -> True /\ Q.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
127
(* begin thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
128 129
    my_tauto.
  Qed.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
130
(* end thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
131 132
End propositional.

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
133
(** It was relatively easy to implement modus ponens, because we do not lose information by clearing every implication that we use.  If we want to implement a similarly complete procedure for quantifier instantiation, we need a way to ensure that a particular proposition is not already included among our hypotheses.  To do that effectively, we first need to learn a bit more about the semantics of [match].
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
134 135 136

It is tempting to assume that [match] works like it does in ML.  In fact, there are a few critical differences in its behavior.  One is that we may include arbitrary expressions in patterns, instead of being restricted to variables and constructors.  Another is that the same variable may appear multiple times, inducing an implicit equality constraint.

137
There is a related pair of two other differences that are much more important than the others.  The [match] construct has a _backtracking semantics for failure_.  In ML, pattern matching works by finding the first pattern to match and then executing its body.  If the body raises an exception, then the overall match raises the same exception.  In Coq, failures in case bodies instead trigger continued search through the list of cases.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145

For instance, this (unnecessarily verbose) proof script works: *)

Theorem m1 : True.
  match goal with
    | [ |- _ ] => intro
    | [ |- True ] => constructor
  end.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
146
(* begin thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
147
Qed.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
148
(* end thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
149

150
(** The first case matches trivially, but its body tactic fails, since the conclusion does not begin with a quantifier or implication.  In a similar ML match, the whole pattern-match would fail.  In Coq, we backtrack and try the next pattern, which also matches.  Its body tactic succeeds, so the overall tactic succeeds as well.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
151

152
   The example shows how failure can move to a different pattern within a [match].  Failure can also trigger an attempt to find _a different way of matching a single pattern_.  Consider another example: *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
153 154 155

Theorem m2 : forall P Q R : Prop, P -> Q -> R -> Q.
  intros; match goal with
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
156
            | [ H : _ |- _ ] => idtac H
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
157 158
          end.

159
  (** Coq prints "[H1]".  By applying %\index{tactics!idtac}%[idtac] with an argument, a convenient debugging tool for "leaking information out of [match]es," we see that this [match] first tries binding [H] to [H1], which cannot be used to prove [Q].  Nonetheless, the following variation on the tactic succeeds at proving the goal: *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
160

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
161
(* begin thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
162 163 164 165
  match goal with
    | [ H : _ |- _ ] => exact H
  end.
Qed.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
166
(* end thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
167 168 169 170 171

(** The tactic first unifies [H] with [H1], as before, but [exact H] fails in that case, so the tactic engine searches for more possible values of [H].  Eventually, it arrives at the correct value, so that [exact H] and the overall tactic succeed. *)

(** Now we are equipped to implement a tactic for checking that a proposition is not among our hypotheses: *)

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
172
(* begin thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181
Ltac notHyp P :=
  match goal with
    | [ _ : P |- _ ] => fail 1
    | _ =>
      match P with
        | ?P1 /\ ?P2 => first [ notHyp P1 | notHyp P2 | fail 2 ]
        | _ => idtac
      end
  end.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
182
(* end thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
183

184
(** We use the equality checking that is built into pattern-matching to see if there is a hypothesis that matches the proposition exactly.  If so, we use the %\index{tactics!fail}%[fail] tactic.  Without arguments, [fail] signals normal tactic failure, as you might expect.  When [fail] is passed an argument [n], [n] is used to count outwards through the enclosing cases of backtracking search.  In this case, [fail 1] says "fail not just in this pattern-matching branch, but for the whole [match]."  The second case will never be tried when the [fail 1] is reached.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
185

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
186
This second case, used when [P] matches no hypothesis, checks if [P] is a conjunction.  Other simplifications may have split conjunctions into their component formulas, so we need to check that at least one of those components is also not represented.  To achieve this, we apply the %\index{tactics!first}%[first] tactical, which takes a list of tactics and continues down the list until one of them does not fail.  The [fail 2] at the end says to [fail] both the [first] and the [match] wrapped around it.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
187

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
188
The body of the [?P1 /\ ?P2] case guarantees that, if it is reached, we either succeed completely or fail completely.  Thus, if we reach the wildcard case, [P] is not a conjunction.  We use %\index{tactics!idtac}%[idtac], a tactic that would be silly to apply on its own, since its effect is to succeed at doing nothing.  Nonetheless, [idtac] is a useful placeholder for cases like what we see here.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
189 190 191

With the non-presence check implemented, it is easy to build a tactic that takes as input a proof term and adds its conclusion as a new hypothesis, only if that conclusion is not already present, failing otherwise. *)

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
192
(* begin thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
193 194 195
Ltac extend pf :=
  let t := type of pf in
    notHyp t; generalize pf; intro.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
196
(* end thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
197

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
198
(** We see the useful %\index{tactics!type of}%[type of] operator of Ltac.  This operator could not be implemented in Gallina, but it is easy to support in Ltac.  We end up with [t] bound to the type of [pf].  We check that [t] is not already present.  If so, we use a [generalize]/[intro] combo to add a new hypothesis proved by [pf].  The tactic %\index{tactics!generalize}%[generalize] takes as input a term [t] (for instance, a proof of some proposition) and then changes the conclusion from [G] to [T -> G], where [T] is the type of [t] (for instance, the proposition proved by the proof [t]).
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
199

200
   With these tactics defined, we can write a tactic [completer] for, among other things, adding to the context all consequences of a set of simple first-order formulas. *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
201

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
202
(* begin thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
203 204 205 206
Ltac completer :=
  repeat match goal with
           | [ |- _ /\ _ ] => constructor
	   | [ H : _ /\ _ |- _ ] => destruct H
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
207
           | [ H : ?P -> ?Q, H' : ?P |- _ ] => specialize (H H')
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
208 209
           | [ |- forall x, _ ] => intro

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
210
           | [ H : forall x, ?P x -> _, H' : ?P ?X |- _ ] => extend (H X H')
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
211
         end.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
212
(* end thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
213 214 215 216 217

(** We use the same kind of conjunction and implication handling as previously.  Note that, since [->] is the special non-dependent case of [forall], the fourth rule handles [intro] for implications, too.

   In the fifth rule, when we find a [forall] fact [H] with a premise matching one of our hypotheses, we add the appropriate instantiation of [H]'s conclusion, if we have not already added it.

218
   We can check that [completer] is working properly, with a theorem that introduces a spurious variable whose didactic purpose we will come to shortly. *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226

Section firstorder.
  Variable A : Set.
  Variables P Q R S : A -> Prop.

  Hypothesis H1 : forall x, P x -> Q x /\ R x.
  Hypothesis H2 : forall x, R x -> S x.

227
  Theorem fo : forall (y x : A), P x -> S x.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
228
(* begin thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
229 230
    completer.
    (** [[
231
  y : A
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
232 233 234 235 236 237 238
  x : A
  H : P x
  H0 : Q x
  H3 : R x
  H4 : S x
  ============================
   S x
239 240
   ]]
   *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
241 242 243

    assumption.
  Qed.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
244
(* end thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
245 246
End firstorder.

247
(** We narrowly avoided a subtle pitfall in our definition of [completer].  Let us try another definition that even seems preferable to the original, to the untrained eye.  (We change the second [match] case a bit to make the tactic smart enough to handle some subtleties of Ltac behavior that had not been exercised previously.) *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
248

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
249
(* begin thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
250 251 252
Ltac completer' :=
  repeat match goal with
           | [ |- _ /\ _ ] => constructor
253 254 255 256
	   | [ H : ?P /\ ?Q |- _ ] => destruct H;
             repeat match goal with
                      | [ H' : P /\ Q |- _ ] => clear H'
                    end
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
257
           | [ H : ?P -> _, H' : ?P |- _ ] => specialize (H H')
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
258 259
           | [ |- forall x, _ ] => intro

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
260
           | [ H : forall x, ?P x -> _, H' : ?P ?X |- _ ] => extend (H X H')
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
261
         end.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
262
(* end thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
263

264
(** The only other difference is in the modus ponens rule, where we have replaced an unused unification variable [?Q] with a wildcard.  Let us try our example again with this version: *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272

Section firstorder'.
  Variable A : Set.
  Variables P Q R S : A -> Prop.

  Hypothesis H1 : forall x, P x -> Q x /\ R x.
  Hypothesis H2 : forall x, R x -> S x.

273
  Theorem fo' : forall (y x : A), P x -> S x.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
274
    completer'.
275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285
    (** [[
  y : A
  H1 : P y -> Q y /\ R y
  H2 : R y -> S y
  x : A
  H : P x
  ============================
   S x
   ]]
   The quantified theorems have been instantiated with [y] instead of [x], reducing a provable goal to one that is unprovable.  Our code in the last [match] case for [completer'] is careful only to instantiate quantifiers along with suitable hypotheses, so why were incorrect choices made?
   *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
286

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
287
  Abort.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
288
(* end thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
289
End firstorder'.
290 291 292 293 294 295 296

(** A few examples should illustrate the issue.  Here we see a [match]-based proof that works fine: *)

Theorem t1 : forall x : nat, x = x.
  match goal with
    | [ |- forall x, _ ] => trivial
  end.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
297
(* begin thide *)
298
Qed.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
299
(* end thide *)
300 301 302

(** This one fails. *)

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
303
(* begin thide *)
304
Theorem t1' : forall x : nat, x = x.
305
(** %\vspace{-.25in}%[[
306 307 308
  match goal with
    | [ |- forall x, ?P ] => trivial
  end.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
309
]]
310

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
311
<<
312
User error: No matching clauses for match goal
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
313 314
>>
*)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
315

316
Abort.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
317
(* end thide *)
318

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
319
(** The problem is that unification variables may not contain locally bound variables.  In this case, [?P] would need to be bound to [x = x], which contains the local quantified variable [x].  By using a wildcard in the earlier version, we avoided this restriction.  To understand why this restriction affects the behavior of the [completer] tactic, recall that, in Coq, implication is shorthand for degenerate universal quantification where the quantified variable is not used.  Nonetheless, in an Ltac pattern, Coq is happy to match a wildcard implication against a universal quantification.
320

321
   The Coq 8.2 release includes a special pattern form for a unification variable with an explicit set of free variables.  That unification variable is then bound to a function from the free variables to the "real" value.  In Coq 8.1 and earlier, there is no such workaround.  We will see an example of this fancier binding form in Section 15.5.
322

323 324 325
   No matter which Coq version you use, it is important to be aware of this restriction.  As we have alluded to, the restriction is the culprit behind the surprising behavior of [completer'].  We unintentionally match quantified facts with the modus ponens rule, circumventing the check that a suitably matching hypothesis is available and leading to different behavior, where wrong quantifier instantiations are chosen.  Our earlier [completer] tactic uses a modus ponens rule that matches the implication conclusion with a variable, which blocks matching against non-trivial universal quantifiers.

   Actually, the behavior demonstrated here applies to Coq version 8.4, but not 8.4pl1.  The latter version will allow regular Ltac pattern variables to match terms that contain locally bound variables, but a tactic failure occurs if that variable is later used as a Gallina term. *)
326 327 328 329


(** * Functional Programming in Ltac *)

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
330 331
(* EX: Write a list length function in Ltac. *)

332 333
(** Ltac supports quite convenient functional programming, with a Lisp-with-syntax kind of flavor.  However, there are a few syntactic conventions involved in getting programs to be accepted.  The Ltac syntax is optimized for tactic-writing, so one has to deal with some inconveniences in writing more standard functional programs.

334
   To illustrate, let us try to write a simple list length function.  We start out writing it just as in Gallina, simply replacing [Fixpoint] (and its annotations) with [Ltac].
335 336 337 338 339 340
   [[
Ltac length ls :=
  match ls with
    | nil => O
    | _ :: ls' => S (length ls')
  end.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
341
]]
342

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
343
<<
344
Error: The reference ls' was not found in the current environment
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
345
>>
346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353

   At this point, we hopefully remember that pattern variable names must be prefixed by question marks in Ltac.
   [[
Ltac length ls :=
  match ls with
    | nil => O
    | _ :: ?ls' => S (length ls')
  end.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
354
]]
355

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
356
<<
357
Error: The reference S was not found in the current environment
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
358
>>
359

360
   The problem is that Ltac treats the expression [S (length ls')] as an invocation of a tactic [S] with argument [length ls'].  We need to use a special annotation to "escape into" the Gallina parsing nonterminal.%\index{tactics!constr}% *)
361

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
362
(* begin thide *)
363 364 365
(* begin hide *)
Definition red_herring := O.
(* end hide *)
366 367 368 369 370 371
Ltac length ls :=
  match ls with
    | nil => O
    | _ :: ?ls' => constr:(S (length ls'))
  end.

372
(** This definition is accepted.  It can be a little awkward to test Ltac definitions like this one.  Here is one method. *)
373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382

Goal False.
  let n := length (1 :: 2 :: 3 :: nil) in
    pose n.
  (** [[
  n := S (length (2 :: 3 :: nil)) : nat
  ============================
   False
   ]]

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
383
   We use the %\index{tactics!pose}%[pose] tactic, which extends the proof context with a new variable that is set equal to a particular term.  We could also have used [idtac n] in place of [pose n], which would have printed the result without changing the context.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
384

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
385
   The value of [n] only has the length calculation unrolled one step.  What has happened here is that, by escaping into the [constr] nonterminal, we referred to the [length] function of Gallina, rather than the [length] Ltac function that we are defining. *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
386 387

Abort.
388 389

Reset length.
390 391 392
(* begin hide *)
Reset red_herring.
(* end hide *)
393 394 395

(** The thing to remember is that Gallina terms built by tactics must be bound explicitly via [let] or a similar technique, rather than inserting Ltac calls directly in other Gallina terms. *)

396 397 398
(* begin hide *)
Definition red_herring := O.
(* end hide *)
399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413
Ltac length ls :=
  match ls with
    | nil => O
    | _ :: ?ls' =>
      let ls'' := length ls' in
        constr:(S ls'')
  end.

Goal False.
  let n := length (1 :: 2 :: 3 :: nil) in
    pose n.
  (** [[
  n := 3 : nat
  ============================
   False
414 415
   ]]
   *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
416

417
Abort.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
418 419 420
(* end thide *)

(* EX: Write a list map function in Ltac. *)
421

422
(* begin hide *)
423
(* begin thide *)
424
Definition mapp := (map, list).
425
(* end thide *)
426 427
(* end hide *)

428 429
(** We can also use anonymous function expressions and local function definitions in Ltac, as this example of a standard list [map] function shows. *)

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
430
(* begin thide *)
431 432 433
Ltac map T f :=
  let rec map' ls :=
    match ls with
434
      | nil => constr:(@nil T)
435 436 437
      | ?x :: ?ls' =>
        let x' := f x in
          let ls'' := map' ls' in
438
            constr:(x' :: ls'')
439 440 441
    end in
  map'.

442
(** Ltac functions can have no implicit arguments.  It may seem surprising that we need to pass [T], the carried type of the output list, explicitly.  We cannot just use [type of f], because [f] is an Ltac term, not a Gallina term, and Ltac programs are dynamically typed.  The function [f] could use very syntactic methods to decide to return differently typed terms for different inputs.  We also could not replace [constr:(@nil T)] with [constr:nil], because we have no strongly typed context to use to infer the parameter to [nil].  Luckily, we do have sufficient context within [constr:(x' :: ls'')].
443

444
Sometimes we need to employ the opposite direction of "nonterminal escape," when we want to pass a complicated tactic expression as an argument to another tactic, as we might want to do in invoking %\coqdocvar{%#<tt>#map#</tt>#%}%. *)
445 446

Goal False.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
447
  let ls := map (nat * nat)%type ltac:(fun x => constr:((x, x))) (1 :: 2 :: 3 :: nil) in
448 449 450 451 452
    pose ls.
  (** [[
  l := (1, 1) :: (2, 2) :: (3, 3) :: nil : list (nat * nat)
  ============================
   False
453 454
   ]]
   *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
455

456
Abort.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
457
(* end thide *)
458

459
(** Each position within an Ltac script has a default applicable non-terminal, where [constr] and [ltac] are the main options worth thinking about, standing respectively for terms of Gallina and Ltac.  The explicit colon notation can always be used to override the default non-terminal choice, though code being parsed as Gallina can no longer use such overrides.  Within the [ltac] non-terminal, top-level function applications are treated as applications in Ltac, not Gallina; but the _arguments_ to such functions are parsed with [constr] by default.  This choice may seem strange, until we realize that we have been relying on it all along in all the proof scripts we write!  For instance, the [apply] tactic is an Ltac function, and it is natural to interpret its argument as a term of Gallina, not Ltac.  We use an [ltac] prefix to parse Ltac function arguments as Ltac terms themselves, as in the call to %\coqdocvar{%#<tt>#map#</tt>#%}% above.  For some simple cases, Ltac terms may be passed without an extra prefix.  For instance, an identifier that has an Ltac meaning but no Gallina meaning will be interpreted in Ltac automatically.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
460

461
One other gotcha shows up when we want to debug our Ltac functional programs.  We might expect the following code to work, to give us a version of %\coqdocvar{%#<tt>#length#</tt>#%}% that prints a debug trace of the arguments it is called with. *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
462

463
(* begin thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
464
Reset length.
465 466 467
(* begin hide *)
Reset red_herring.
(* end hide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
468

469 470 471
(* begin hide *)
Definition red_herring := O.
(* end hide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493
Ltac length ls :=
  idtac ls;
  match ls with
    | nil => O
    | _ :: ?ls' =>
      let ls'' := length ls' in
        constr:(S ls'')
  end.

(** Coq accepts the tactic definition, but the code is fatally flawed and will always lead to dynamic type errors. *)

Goal False.
(** %\vspace{-.15in}%[[
  let n := length (1 :: 2 :: 3 :: nil) in
    pose n.
]]

<<
Error: variable n should be bound to a term.
>> *)
Abort.

494
(** What is going wrong here?  The answer has to do with the dual status of Ltac as both a purely functional and an imperative programming language.  The basic programming language is purely functional, but tactic scripts are one "datatype" that can be returned by such programs, and Coq will run such a script using an imperative semantics that mutates proof states.  Readers familiar with %\index{monad}\index{Haskell}%monadic programming in Haskell%~\cite{Monads,IO}% may recognize a similarity.  Haskell programs with side effects can be thought of as pure programs that return _the code of programs in an imperative language_, where some out-of-band mechanism takes responsibility for running these derived programs.  In this way, Haskell remains pure, while supporting usual input-output side effects and more.  Ltac uses the same basic mechanism, but in a dynamically typed setting.  Here the embedded imperative language includes all the tactics we have been applying so far.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
495 496 497

   Even basic [idtac] is an embedded imperative program, so we may not automatically mix it with purely functional code.  In fact, a semicolon operator alone marks a span of Ltac code as an embedded tactic script.  This makes some amount of sense, since pure functional languages have no need for sequencing: since they lack side effects, there is no reason to run an expression and then just throw away its value and move on to another expression.

498 499
   An alternate explanation that avoids an analogy to Haskell monads (admittedly a tricky concept in its own right) is: An Ltac tactic program returns a function that, when run later, will perform the desired proof modification.  These functions are distinct from other types of data, like numbers or Gallina terms.  The prior, correctly working version of [length] computed solely with Gallina terms, but the new one is implicitly returning a tactic function, as indicated by the use of [idtac] and semicolon.  However, the new version's recursive call to [length] is structured to expect a Gallina term, not a tactic function, as output.  As a result, we have a basic dynamic type error, perhaps obscured by the involvement of first-class tactic scripts.

500
   The solution is like in Haskell: we must "monadify" our pure program to give it access to side effects.  The trouble is that the embedded tactic language has no [return] construct.  Proof scripts are about proving theorems, not calculating results.  We can apply a somewhat awkward workaround that requires translating our program into%\index{continuation-passing style}% _continuation-passing style_ %\cite{continuations}%, a program structuring idea popular in functional programming. *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
501 502

Reset length.
503 504 505
(* begin hide *)
Reset red_herring.
(* end hide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
506 507 508 509 510 511 512

Ltac length ls k :=
  idtac ls;
  match ls with
    | nil => k O
    | _ :: ?ls' => length ls' ltac:(fun n => k (S n))
  end.
513
(* end thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
514

515
(** The new [length] takes a new input: a _continuation_ [k], which is a function to be called to continue whatever proving process we were in the middle of when we called %\coqdocvar{%#<tt>#length#</tt>#%}%.  The argument passed to [k] may be thought of as the return value of %\coqdocvar{%#<tt>#length#</tt>#%}%. *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
516

517
(* begin thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527
Goal False.
  length (1 :: 2 :: 3 :: nil) ltac:(fun n => pose n).
(** [[
(1 :: 2 :: 3 :: nil)
(2 :: 3 :: nil)
(3 :: nil)
nil
]]
*)
Abort.
528
(* end thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
529

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
530 531
(** We see exactly the trace of function arguments that we expected initially, and an examination of the proof state afterward would show that variable [n] has been added with value [3].

532
   Considering the comparison with Haskell's IO monad, there is an important subtlety that deserves to be mentioned.  A Haskell IO computation represents (theoretically speaking, at least) a transformer from one state of the real world to another, plus a pure value to return.  Some of the state can be very specific to the program, as in the case of heap-allocated mutable references, but some can be along the lines of the favorite example "launch missile," where the program has a side effect on the real world that is not possible to undo.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
533

534
   In contrast, Ltac scripts can be thought of as controlling just two simple kinds of mutable state.  First, there is the current sequence of proof subgoals.  Second, there is a partial assignment of discovered values to unification variables introduced by proof search (for instance, by [eauto], as we saw in the previous chapter).  Crucially, _every mutation of this state can be undone_ during backtracking introduced by [match], [auto], and other built-in Ltac constructs.  Ltac proof scripts have state, but it is purely local, and all changes to it are reversible, which is a very useful semantics for proof search. *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
535

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
536

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
537 538 539 540
(** * Recursive Proof Search *)

(** Deciding how to instantiate quantifiers is one of the hardest parts of automated first-order theorem proving.  For a given problem, we can consider all possible bounded-length sequences of quantifier instantiations, applying only propositional reasoning at the end.  This is probably a bad idea for almost all goals, but it makes for a nice example of recursive proof search procedures in Ltac.

541
   We can consider the maximum "dependency chain" length for a first-order proof.  We define the chain length for a hypothesis to be 0, and the chain length for an instantiation of a quantified fact to be one greater than the length for that fact.  The tactic [inster n] is meant to try all possible proofs with chain length at most [n]. *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
542

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
543
(* begin thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
544 545 546 547 548
Ltac inster n :=
  intuition;
    match n with
      | S ?n' =>
        match goal with
549
          | [ H : forall x : ?T, _, y : ?T |- _ ] => generalize (H y); inster n'
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
550 551
        end
    end.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
552
(* end thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
553

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
554
(** The tactic begins by applying propositional simplification.  Next, it checks if any chain length remains, failing if not.  Otherwise, it tries all possible ways of instantiating quantified hypotheses with properly typed local variables.  It is critical to realize that, if the recursive call [inster n'] fails, then the [match goal] just seeks out another way of unifying its pattern against proof state.  Thus, this small amount of code provides an elegant demonstration of how backtracking [match] enables exhaustive search.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565

   We can verify the efficacy of [inster] with two short examples.  The built-in [firstorder] tactic (with no extra arguments) is able to prove the first but not the second. *)

Section test_inster.
  Variable A : Set.
  Variables P Q : A -> Prop.
  Variable f : A -> A.
  Variable g : A -> A -> A.

  Hypothesis H1 : forall x y, P (g x y) -> Q (f x).

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
566
  Theorem test_inster : forall x, P (g x x) -> Q (f x).
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
567
    inster 2.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
568 569 570 571 572 573
  Qed.

  Hypothesis H3 : forall u v, P u /\ P v /\ u <> v -> P (g u v).
  Hypothesis H4 : forall u, Q (f u) -> P u /\ P (f u).

  Theorem test_inster2 : forall x y, x <> y -> P x -> Q (f y) -> Q (f x).
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
574
    inster 3.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
575 576 577
  Qed.
End test_inster.

578
(** The style employed in the definition of [inster] can seem very counterintuitive to functional programmers.  Usually, functional programs accumulate state changes in explicit arguments to recursive functions.  In Ltac, the state of the current subgoal is always implicit.  Nonetheless, recalling the discussion at the end of the last section, in contrast to general imperative programming, it is easy to undo any changes to this state, and indeed such "undoing" happens automatically at failures within [match]es.  In this way, Ltac programming is similar to programming in Haskell with a stateful failure monad that supports a composition operator along the lines of the [first] tactical.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
579

580
   Functional programming purists may react indignantly to the suggestion of programming this way.  Nonetheless, as with other kinds of "monadic programming," many problems are much simpler to solve with Ltac than they would be with explicit, pure proof manipulation in ML or Haskell.  To demonstrate, we will write a basic simplification procedure for logical implications.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
581

582
   This procedure is inspired by one for separation logic%~\cite{separation}%, where conjuncts in formulas are thought of as "resources," such that we lose no completeness by "crossing out" equal conjuncts on the two sides of an implication.  This process is complicated by the fact that, for reasons of modularity, our formulas can have arbitrary nested tree structure (branching at conjunctions) and may include existential quantifiers.  It is helpful for the matching process to "go under" quantifiers and in fact decide how to instantiate existential quantifiers in the conclusion.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
583

584
   To distinguish the implications that our tactic handles from the implications that will show up as "plumbing" in various lemmas, we define a wrapper definition, a notation, and a tactic. *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
585 586 587

Definition imp (P1 P2 : Prop) := P1 -> P2.
Infix "-->" := imp (no associativity, at level 95).
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
588 589
Ltac imp := unfold imp; firstorder.

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
590 591
(** These lemmas about [imp] will be useful in the tactic that we will write. *)

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603
Theorem and_True_prem : forall P Q,
  (P /\ True --> Q)
  -> (P --> Q).
  imp.
Qed.

Theorem and_True_conc : forall P Q,
  (P --> Q /\ True)
  -> (P --> Q).
  imp.
Qed.

604
Theorem pick_prem1 : forall P Q R S,
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
605 606 607 608 609
  (P /\ (Q /\ R) --> S)
  -> ((P /\ Q) /\ R --> S).
  imp.
Qed.

610
Theorem pick_prem2 : forall P Q R S,
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621
  (Q /\ (P /\ R) --> S)
  -> ((P /\ Q) /\ R --> S).
  imp.
Qed.

Theorem comm_prem : forall P Q R,
  (P /\ Q --> R)
  -> (Q /\ P --> R).
  imp.
Qed.

622
Theorem pick_conc1 : forall P Q R S,
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
623 624 625 626 627
  (S --> P /\ (Q /\ R))
  -> (S --> (P /\ Q) /\ R).
  imp.
Qed.

628
Theorem pick_conc2 : forall P Q R S,
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639
  (S --> Q /\ (P /\ R))
  -> (S --> (P /\ Q) /\ R).
  imp.
Qed.

Theorem comm_conc : forall P Q R,
  (R --> P /\ Q)
  -> (R --> Q /\ P).
  imp.
Qed.

640
(** The first order of business in crafting our [matcher] tactic will be auxiliary support for searching through formula trees.  The [search_prem] tactic implements running its tactic argument [tac] on every subformula of an [imp] premise.  As it traverses a tree, [search_prem] applies some of the above lemmas to rewrite the goal to bring different subformulas to the head of the goal.  That is, for every subformula [P] of the implication premise, we want [P] to "have a turn," where the premise is rearranged into the form [P /\ Q] for some [Q].  The tactic [tac] should expect to see a goal in this form and focus its attention on the first conjunct of the premise. *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
641

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
642 643 644 645 646 647
Ltac search_prem tac :=
  let rec search P :=
    tac
    || (apply and_True_prem; tac)
    || match P with
         | ?P1 /\ ?P2 =>
648 649
           (apply pick_prem1; search P1)
           || (apply pick_prem2; search P2)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
650 651 652 653 654 655 656
       end
  in match goal with
       | [ |- ?P /\ _ --> _ ] => search P
       | [ |- _ /\ ?P --> _ ] => apply comm_prem; search P
       | [ |- _ --> _ ] => progress (tac || (apply and_True_prem; tac))
     end.

657
(** To understand how [search_prem] works, we turn first to the final [match].  If the premise begins with a conjunction, we call the [search] procedure on each of the conjuncts, or only the first conjunct, if that already yields a case where [tac] does not fail.  The call [search P] expects and maintains the invariant that the premise is of the form [P /\ Q] for some [Q].  We pass [P] explicitly as a kind of decreasing induction measure, to avoid looping forever when [tac] always fails.  The second [match] case calls a commutativity lemma to realize this invariant, before passing control to [search].  The final [match] case tries applying [tac] directly and then, if that fails, changes the form of the goal by adding an extraneous [True] conjunct and calls [tac] again.  The %\index{tactics!progress}%[progress] tactical fails when its argument tactic succeeds without changing the current subgoal.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
658

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
659
   The [search] function itself tries the same tricks as in the last case of the final [match], using the [||] operator as a shorthand for trying one tactic and then, if the first fails, trying another.  Additionally, if neither works, it checks if [P] is a conjunction.  If so, it calls itself recursively on each conjunct, first applying associativity/commutativity lemmas to maintain the goal-form invariant.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
660 661 662

   We will also want a dual function [search_conc], which does tree search through an [imp] conclusion. *)

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
663 664 665 666 667 668
Ltac search_conc tac :=
  let rec search P :=
    tac
    || (apply and_True_conc; tac)
    || match P with
         | ?P1 /\ ?P2 =>
669 670
           (apply pick_conc1; search P1)
           || (apply pick_conc2; search P2)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
671 672 673 674 675 676 677
       end
  in match goal with
       | [ |- _ --> ?P /\ _ ] => search P
       | [ |- _ --> _ /\ ?P ] => apply comm_conc; search P
       | [ |- _ --> _ ] => progress (tac || (apply and_True_conc; tac))
     end.

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
678 679
(** Now we can prove a number of lemmas that are suitable for application by our search tactics.  A lemma that is meant to handle a premise should have the form [P /\ Q --> R] for some interesting [P], and a lemma that is meant to handle a conclusion should have the form [P --> Q /\ R] for some interesting [Q]. *)

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
680
(* begin thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709
Theorem False_prem : forall P Q,
  False /\ P --> Q.
  imp.
Qed.

Theorem True_conc : forall P Q : Prop,
  (P --> Q)
  -> (P --> True /\ Q).
  imp.
Qed.

Theorem Match : forall P Q R : Prop,
  (Q --> R)
  -> (P /\ Q --> P /\ R).
  imp.
Qed.

Theorem ex_prem : forall (T : Type) (P : T -> Prop) (Q R : Prop),
  (forall x, P x /\ Q --> R)
  -> (ex P /\ Q --> R).
  imp.
Qed.

Theorem ex_conc : forall (T : Type) (P : T -> Prop) (Q R : Prop) x,
  (Q --> P x /\ R)
  -> (Q --> ex P /\ R).
  imp.
Qed.

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
710
(** We will also want a "base case" lemma for finishing proofs where cancellation has removed every constituent of the conclusion. *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
711

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
712 713 714 715 716
Theorem imp_True : forall P,
  P --> True.
  imp.
Qed.

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
717
(** Our final [matcher] tactic is now straightforward.  First, we [intros] all variables into scope.  Then we attempt simple premise simplifications, finishing the proof upon finding [False] and eliminating any existential quantifiers that we find.  After that, we search through the conclusion.  We remove [True] conjuncts, remove existential quantifiers by introducing unification variables for their bound variables, and search for matching premises to cancel.  Finally, when no more progress is made, we see if the goal has become trivial and can be solved by [imp_True].  In each case, we use the tactic %\index{tactics!simple apply}%[simple apply] in place of [apply] to use a simpler, less expensive unification algorithm. *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
718

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
719 720
Ltac matcher :=
  intros;
721 722 723
    repeat search_prem ltac:(simple apply False_prem || (simple apply ex_prem; intro));
      repeat search_conc ltac:(simple apply True_conc || simple eapply ex_conc
        || search_prem ltac:(simple apply Match));
724
      try simple apply imp_True.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
725
(* end thide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
726 727

(** Our tactic succeeds at proving a simple example. *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
728 729 730 731 732 733

Theorem t2 : forall P Q : Prop,
  Q /\ (P /\ False) /\ P --> P /\ Q.
  matcher.
Qed.

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
734 735 736
(** In the generated proof, we find a trace of the workings of the search tactics. *)

Print t2.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
737
(** %\vspace{-.15in}% [[
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
738 739
t2 = 
fun P Q : Prop =>
740
comm_prem (pick_prem1 (pick_prem2 (False_prem (P:=P /\ P /\ Q) (P /\ Q))))
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
741
     : forall P Q : Prop, Q /\ (P /\ False) /\ P --> P /\ Q
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
742
     ]]
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
743

744
%\smallskip{}%We can also see that [matcher] is well-suited for cases where some human intervention is needed after the automation finishes. *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
745

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
746 747 748
Theorem t3 : forall P Q R : Prop,
  P /\ Q --> Q /\ R /\ P.
  matcher.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
749 750 751
  (** [[
  ============================
   True --> R
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
752
 
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
753 754
   ]]

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
755
   Our tactic canceled those conjuncts that it was able to cancel, leaving a simplified subgoal for us, much as [intuition] does. *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
756

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
757 758
Abort.

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
759
(** The [matcher] tactic even succeeds at guessing quantifier instantiations.  It is the unification that occurs in uses of the [Match] lemma that does the real work here. *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
760

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
761 762 763 764
Theorem t4 : forall (P : nat -> Prop) Q, (exists x, P x /\ Q) --> Q /\ (exists x, P x).
  matcher.
Qed.

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
765
Print t4.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
766
(** %\vspace{-.15in}% [[
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
767 768 769 770 771
t4 = 
fun (P : nat -> Prop) (Q : Prop) =>
and_True_prem
  (ex_prem (P:=fun x : nat => P x /\ Q)
     (fun x : nat =>
772
      pick_prem2
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
773 774 775 776 777 778
        (Match (P:=Q)
           (and_True_conc
              (ex_conc (fun x0 : nat => P x0) x
                 (Match (P:=P x) (imp_True (P:=True))))))))
     : forall (P : nat -> Prop) (Q : Prop),
       (exists x : nat, P x /\ Q) --> Q /\ (exists x : nat, P x)
779
]]
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
780 781

This proof term is a mouthful, and we can be glad that we did not build it manually! *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
782 783 784 785


(** * Creating Unification Variables *)

786
(** A final useful ingredient in tactic crafting is the ability to allocate new unification variables explicitly.  Tactics like [eauto] introduce unification variables internally to support flexible proof search.  While [eauto] and its relatives do _backward_ reasoning, we often want to do similar _forward_ reasoning, where unification variables can be useful for similar reasons.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
787

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
788
   For example, we can write a tactic that instantiates the quantifiers of a universally quantified hypothesis.  The tactic should not need to know what the appropriate instantiations are; rather, we want these choices filled with placeholders.  We hope that, when we apply the specialized hypothesis later, syntactic unification will determine concrete values.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801

   Before we are ready to write a tactic, we can try out its ingredients one at a time. *)

Theorem t5 : (forall x : nat, S x > x) -> 2 > 1.
  intros.

  (** [[
  H : forall x : nat, S x > x
  ============================
   2 > 1
 
   ]]

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
802
   To instantiate [H] generically, we first need to name the value to be used for [x].%\index{tactics!evar}% *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813

  evar (y : nat).

  (** [[
  H : forall x : nat, S x > x
  y := ?279 : nat
  ============================
   2 > 1
 
   ]]

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
814
   The proof context is extended with a new variable [y], which has been assigned to be equal to a fresh unification variable [?279].  We want to instantiate [H] with [?279].  To get ahold of the new unification variable, rather than just its alias [y], we perform a trivial unfolding in the expression [y], using the %\index{tactics!eval}%[eval] Ltac construct, which works with the same reduction strategies that we have seen in tactics (e.g., [simpl], [compute], etc.).  *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
815

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
816
  let y' := eval unfold y in y in
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
817
    clear y; specialize (H y').
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
818 819

  (** [[
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
820
  H : S ?279 > ?279
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
821
  ============================
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
822
    2 > 1
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
823 824 825
 
   ]]

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
826
   Our instantiation was successful.  We can finish the proof by using [apply]'s unification to figure out the proper value of [?279]. *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
827 828 829 830 831 832

  apply H.
Qed.

(** Now we can write a tactic that encapsulates the pattern we just employed, instantiating all quantifiers of a particular hypothesis. *)

833 834 835
(* begin hide *)
Definition red_herring := O.
(* end hide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
836 837 838 839 840
Ltac insterU H :=
  repeat match type of H with
           | forall x : ?T, _ =>
             let x := fresh "x" in
               evar (x : T);
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
841 842
               let x' := eval unfold x in x in
                 clear x; specialize (H x')
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
843 844 845 846 847 848
         end.

Theorem t5' : (forall x : nat, S x > x) -> 2 > 1.
  intro H; insterU H; apply H.
Qed.

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
849
(** This particular example is somewhat silly, since [apply] by itself would have solved the goal originally.  Separate forward reasoning is more useful on hypotheses that end in existential quantifications.  Before we go through an example, it is useful to define a variant of [insterU] that does not clear the base hypothesis we pass to it.  We use the Ltac construct %\index{tactics!fresh}%[fresh] to generate a hypothesis name that is not already used, based on a string suggesting a good name. *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869

Ltac insterKeep H :=
  let H' := fresh "H'" in
    generalize H; intro H'; insterU H'.

Section t6.
  Variables A B : Type.
  Variable P : A -> B -> Prop.
  Variable f : A -> A -> A.
  Variable g : B -> B -> B.

  Hypothesis H1 : forall v, exists u, P v u.
  Hypothesis H2 : forall v1 u1 v2 u2,
    P v1 u1
    -> P v2 u2
    -> P (f v1 v2) (g u1 u2).

  Theorem t6 : forall v1 v2, exists u1, exists u2, P (f v1 v2) (g u1 u2).
    intros.

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
870
    (** Neither [eauto] nor [firstorder] is clever enough to prove this goal.  We can help out by doing some of the work with quantifiers ourselves, abbreviating the proof with the %\index{tactics!do}%[do] tactical for repetition of a tactic a set number of times. *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883

    do 2 insterKeep H1.

    (** Our proof state is extended with two generic instances of [H1].

       [[
  H' : exists u : B, P ?4289 u
  H'0 : exists u : B, P ?4288 u
  ============================
   exists u1 : B, exists u2 : B, P (f v1 v2) (g u1 u2)
 
   ]]

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
884
   Normal [eauto] still cannot prove the goal, so we eliminate the two new existential quantifiers.  (Recall that [ex] is the underlying type family to which uses of the [exists] syntax are compiled.) *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910

    repeat match goal with
             | [ H : ex _ |- _ ] => destruct H
           end.

    (** Now the goal is simple enough to solve by logic programming. *)

    eauto.
  Qed.
End t6.

(** Our [insterU] tactic does not fare so well with quantified hypotheses that also contain implications.  We can see the problem in a slight modification of the last example.  We introduce a new unary predicate [Q] and use it to state an additional requirement of our hypothesis [H1]. *)

Section t7.
  Variables A B : Type.
  Variable Q : A -> Prop.
  Variable P : A -> B -> Prop.
  Variable f : A -> A -> A.
  Variable g : B -> B -> B.

  Hypothesis H1 : forall v, Q v -> exists u, P v u.
  Hypothesis H2 : forall v1 u1 v2 u2,
    P v1 u1
    -> P v2 u2
    -> P (f v1 v2) (g u1 u2).

911
  Theorem t7 : forall v1 v2, Q v1 -> Q v2 -> exists u1, exists u2, P (f v1 v2) (g u1 u2).
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
912 913 914 915 916 917 918
    intros; do 2 insterKeep H1;
      repeat match goal with
               | [ H : ex _ |- _ ] => destruct H
             end; eauto.

    (** This proof script does not hit any errors until the very end, when an error message like this one is displayed.

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
919
<<
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
920 921
No more subgoals but non-instantiated existential variables :
Existential 1 =
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
922
>>
923
       %\vspace{-.35in}%[[
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939
?4384 : [A : Type
         B : Type
         Q : A -> Prop
         P : A -> B -> Prop
         f : A -> A -> A
         g : B -> B -> B
         H1 : forall v : A, Q v -> exists u : B, P v u
         H2 : forall (v1 : A) (u1 : B) (v2 : A) (u2 : B),
              P v1 u1 -> P v2 u2 -> P (f v1 v2) (g u1 u2)
         v1 : A
         v2 : A
         H : Q v1
         H0 : Q v2
         H' : Q v2 -> exists u : B, P v2 u |- Q v2] 
         ]]

940
         There is another similar line about a different existential variable.  Here, "existential variable" means what we have also called "unification variable."  In the course of the proof, some unification variable [?4384] was introduced but never unified.  Unification variables are just a device to structure proof search; the language of Gallina proof terms does not include them.  Thus, we cannot produce a proof term without instantiating the variable.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
941 942 943 944 945 946 947

         The error message shows that [?4384] is meant to be a proof of [Q v2] in a particular proof state, whose variables and hypotheses are displayed.  It turns out that [?4384] was created by [insterU], as the value of a proof to pass to [H1].  Recall that, in Gallina, implication is just a degenerate case of [forall] quantification, so the [insterU] code to match against [forall] also matched the implication.  Since any proof of [Q v2] is as good as any other in this context, there was never any opportunity to use unification to determine exactly which proof is appropriate.  We expect similar problems with any implications in arguments to [insterU]. *)

  Abort.
End t7.

Reset insterU.
948 949 950
(* begin hide *)
Reset red_herring.
(* end hide *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
951

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
952
(** We can redefine [insterU] to treat implications differently.  In particular, we pattern-match on the type of the type [T] in [forall x : ?T, ...].  If [T] has type [Prop], then [x]'s instantiation should be thought of as a proof.  Thus, instead of picking a new unification variable for it, we instead apply a user-supplied tactic [tac].  It is important that we end this special [Prop] case with [|| fail 1], so that, if [tac] fails to prove [T], we abort the instantiation, rather than continuing on to the default quantifier handling.  Also recall that the tactic form %\index{tactics!solve}%[solve [ t ]] fails if [t] does not completely solve the goal. *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
953 954 955 956 957 958 959

Ltac insterU tac H :=
  repeat match type of H with
           | forall x : ?T, _ =>
             match type of T with
               | Prop =>
                 (let H' := fresh "H'" in
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
960 961
                   assert (H' : T) by solve [ tac ];
                     specialize (H H'); clear H')
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
962 963 964 965
                 || fail 1
               | _ =>
                 let x := fresh "x" in
                   evar (x : T);
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
966 967
                   let x' := eval unfold x in x in
                     clear x; specialize (H x')
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987
             end
         end.

Ltac insterKeep tac H :=
  let H' := fresh "H'" in
    generalize H; intro H'; insterU tac H'.

Section t7.
  Variables A B : Type.
  Variable Q : A -> Prop.
  Variable P : A -> B -> Prop.
  Variable f : A -> A -> A.
  Variable g : B -> B -> B.

  Hypothesis H1 : forall v, Q v -> exists u, P v u.
  Hypothesis H2 : forall v1 u1 v2 u2,
    P v1 u1
    -> P v2 u2
    -> P (f v1 v2) (g u1 u2).

988
  Theorem t7 : forall v1 v2, Q v1 -> Q v2 -> exists u1, exists u2, P (f v1 v2) (g u1 u2).
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010

    (** We can prove the goal by calling [insterKeep] with a tactic that tries to find and apply a [Q] hypothesis over a variable about which we do not yet know any [P] facts.  We need to begin this tactic code with [idtac; ] to get around a strange limitation in Coq's proof engine, where a first-class tactic argument may not begin with a [match]. *)

    intros; do 2 insterKeep ltac:(idtac; match goal with
                                           | [ H : Q ?v |- _ ] =>
                                             match goal with
                                               | [ _ : context[P v _] |- _ ] => fail 1
                                               | _ => apply H
                                             end
                                         end) H1;
    repeat match goal with
             | [ H : ex _ |- _ ] => destruct H
           end; eauto.
  Qed.
End t7.

(** It is often useful to instantiate existential variables explicitly.  A built-in tactic provides one way of doing so. *)

Theorem t8 : exists p : nat * nat, fst p = 3.
  econstructor; instantiate (1 := (3, 2)); reflexivity.
Qed.

1011
(** The [1] above is identifying an existential variable appearing in the current goal, with the last existential appearing assigned number 1, the second-last assigned number 2, and so on.  The named existential is replaced everywhere by the term to the right of the [:=].
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
1012

Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
1013
   The %\index{tactics!instantiate}%[instantiate] tactic can be convenient for exploratory proving, but it leads to very brittle proof scripts that are unlikely to adapt to changing theorem statements.  It is often more helpful to have a tactic that can be used to assign a value to a term that is known to be an existential.  By employing a roundabout implementation technique, we can build a tactic that generalizes this functionality.  In particular, our tactic [equate] will assert that two terms are equal.  If one of the terms happens to be an existential, then it will be replaced everywhere with the other term. *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
1014 1015

Ltac equate x y :=
1016
  let dummy := constr:(eq_refl x : x = y) in idtac.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
1017

1018
(** This tactic fails if it is not possible to prove [x = y] by [eq_refl].  We check the proof only for its unification side effects, ignoring the associated variable [dummy].  With [equate], we can build a less brittle version of the prior example. *)
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024

Theorem t9 : exists p : nat * nat, fst p = 3.
  econstructor; match goal with
                  | [ |- fst ?x = 3 ] => equate x (3, 2)
                end; reflexivity.
Qed.
Adam Chlipala's avatar
Adam Chlipala committed
1025 1026

(** This technique is even more useful within recursive and iterative tactics that are meant to solve broad classes of goals. *)