Mercurial > cpdt > repo

annotate src/Large.v @ 305:690796f4690d

Find changesets by keywords (author, files, the commit message), revision number or hash, or revset expression.
Further emphasize necessity and purpose of Set Implicit Arguments; tweak Makefile to support parallel builds
author Adam Chlipala <adam@chlipala.net>
date Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:34:53 -0400
parents 7b38729be069
children d5787b70cf48
rev   line source
adam@289 1 (* Copyright (c) 2009-2010, Adam Chlipala
adamc@235 2 *
adamc@235 3 * This work is licensed under a
adamc@235 4 * Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
adamc@235 5 * Unported License.
adamc@235 6 * The license text is available at:
adamc@235 7 * http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
adamc@235 8 *)
adamc@235 9
adamc@235 10 (* begin hide *)
adamc@236 11 Require Import Arith.
adamc@236 12
adamc@235 13 Require Import Tactics.
adamc@235 14
adamc@235 15 Set Implicit Arguments.
adamc@235 16 (* end hide *)
adamc@235 17
adamc@235 18
adamc@235 19 (** %\chapter{Proving in the Large}% *)
adamc@235 20
adam@289 21 (** It is somewhat unfortunate that the term %``%#"#theorem-proving#"#%''% looks so much like the word %``%#"#theory.#"#%''% Most researchers and practitioners in software assume that mechanized theorem-proving is profoundly impractical. Indeed, until recently, most advances in theorem-proving for higher-order logics have been largely theoretical. However, starting around the beginning of the 21st century, there was a surge in the use of proof assistants in serious verification efforts. That line of work is still quite new, but I believe it is not too soon to distill some lessons on how to work effectively with large formal proofs.
adamc@236 22
adamc@236 23 Thus, this chapter gives some tips for structuring and maintaining large Coq developments. *)
adamc@236 24
adamc@236 25
adamc@236 26 (** * Ltac Anti-Patterns *)
adamc@236 27
adam@289 28 (** In this book, I have been following an unusual style, where proofs are not considered finished until they are %``%#"#fully automated,#"#%''% in a certain sense. Each such theorem is proved by a single tactic. Since Ltac is a Turing-complete programming language, it is not hard to squeeze arbitrary heuristics into single tactics, using operators like the semicolon to combine steps. In contrast, most Ltac proofs %``%#"#in the wild#"#%''% consist of many steps, performed by individual tactics followed by periods. Is it really worth drawing a distinction between proof steps terminated by semicolons and steps terminated by periods?
adamc@236 29
adamc@237 30 I argue that this is, in fact, a very important distinction, with serious consequences for a majority of important verification domains. The more uninteresting drudge work a proof domain involves, the more important it is to work to prove theorems with single tactics. From an automation standpoint, single-tactic proofs can be extremely effective, and automation becomes more and more critical as proofs are populated by more uninteresting detail. In this section, I will give some examples of the consequences of more common proof styles.
adamc@236 31
adamc@236 32 As a running example, consider a basic language of arithmetic expressions, an interpreter for it, and a transformation that scales up every constant in an expression. *)
adamc@236 33
adamc@236 34 Inductive exp : Set :=
adamc@236 35 | Const : nat -> exp
adamc@236 36 | Plus : exp -> exp -> exp.
adamc@236 37
adamc@236 38 Fixpoint eval (e : exp) : nat :=
adamc@236 39 match e with
adamc@236 40 | Const n => n
adamc@236 41 | Plus e1 e2 => eval e1 + eval e2
adamc@236 42 end.
adamc@236 43
adamc@236 44 Fixpoint times (k : nat) (e : exp) : exp :=
adamc@236 45 match e with
adamc@236 46 | Const n => Const (k * n)
adamc@236 47 | Plus e1 e2 => Plus (times k e1) (times k e2)
adamc@236 48 end.
adamc@236 49
adamc@236 50 (** We can write a very manual proof that [double] really doubles an expression's value. *)
adamc@236 51
adamc@236 52 Theorem eval_times : forall k e,
adamc@236 53 eval (times k e) = k * eval e.
adamc@236 54 induction e.
adamc@236 55
adamc@236 56 trivial.
adamc@236 57
adamc@236 58 simpl.
adamc@236 59 rewrite IHe1.
adamc@236 60 rewrite IHe2.
adamc@236 61 rewrite mult_plus_distr_l.
adamc@236 62 trivial.
adamc@236 63 Qed.
adamc@236 64
adamc@236 65 (** We use spaces to separate the two inductive cases. The second case mentions automatically-generated hypothesis names explicitly. As a result, innocuous changes to the theorem statement can invalidate the proof. *)
adamc@236 66
adamc@236 67 Reset eval_times.
adamc@236 68
adamc@236 69 Theorem eval_double : forall k x,
adamc@236 70 eval (times k x) = k * eval x.
adamc@236 71 induction x.
adamc@236 72
adamc@236 73 trivial.
adamc@236 74
adamc@236 75 simpl.
adamc@236 76 (** [[
adamc@236 77 rewrite IHe1.
adamc@236 78
adamc@236 79 Error: The reference IHe1 was not found in the current environment.
adamc@236 80
adamc@236 81 ]]
adamc@236 82
adamc@236 83 The inductive hypotheses are named [IHx1] and [IHx2] now, not [IHe1] and [IHe2]. *)
adamc@236 84
adamc@236 85 Abort.
adamc@236 86
adamc@236 87 (** We might decide to use a more explicit invocation of [induction] to give explicit binders for all of the names that we will reference later in the proof. *)
adamc@236 88
adamc@236 89 Theorem eval_times : forall k e,
adamc@236 90 eval (times k e) = k * eval e.
adamc@236 91 induction e as [ | ? IHe1 ? IHe2 ].
adamc@236 92
adamc@236 93 trivial.
adamc@236 94
adamc@236 95 simpl.
adamc@236 96 rewrite IHe1.
adamc@236 97 rewrite IHe2.
adamc@236 98 rewrite mult_plus_distr_l.
adamc@236 99 trivial.
adamc@236 100 Qed.
adamc@236 101
adamc@236 102 (** We pass [induction] an %\textit{%#<i>#intro pattern#</i>#%}%, using a [|] character to separate out instructions for the different inductive cases. Within a case, we write [?] to ask Coq to generate a name automatically, and we write an explicit name to assign that name to the corresponding new variable. It is apparent that, to use intro patterns to avoid proof brittleness, one needs to keep track of the seemingly unimportant facts of the orders in which variables are introduced. Thus, the script keeps working if we replace [e] by [x], but it has become more cluttered. Arguably, neither proof is particularly easy to follow.
adamc@236 103
adamc@237 104 That category of complaint has to do with understanding proofs as static artifacts. As with programming in general, with serious projects, it tends to be much more important to be able to support evolution of proofs as specifications change. Unstructured proofs like the above examples can be very hard to update in concert with theorem statements. For instance, consider how the last proof script plays out when we modify [times] to introduce a bug. *)
adamc@236 105
adamc@236 106 Reset times.
adamc@236 107
adamc@236 108 Fixpoint times (k : nat) (e : exp) : exp :=
adamc@236 109 match e with
adamc@236 110 | Const n => Const (1 + k * n)
adamc@236 111 | Plus e1 e2 => Plus (times k e1) (times k e2)
adamc@236 112 end.
adamc@236 113
adamc@236 114 Theorem eval_times : forall k e,
adamc@236 115 eval (times k e) = k * eval e.
adamc@236 116 induction e as [ | ? IHe1 ? IHe2 ].
adamc@236 117
adamc@236 118 trivial.
adamc@236 119
adamc@236 120 simpl.
adamc@236 121 (** [[
adamc@236 122 rewrite IHe1.
adamc@236 123
adamc@236 124 Error: The reference IHe1 was not found in the current environment.
adamc@236 125
adam@302 126 ]]
adam@302 127 *)
adamc@236 128
adamc@236 129 Abort.
adamc@236 130
adamc@237 131 (** Can you spot what went wrong, without stepping through the script step-by-step? The problem is that [trivial] never fails. Originally, [trivial] had been succeeding in proving an equality that follows by reflexivity. Our change to [times] leads to a case where that equality is no longer true. [trivial] happily leaves the false equality in place, and we continue on to the span of tactics intended for the second inductive case. Unfortunately, those tactics end up being applied to the %\textit{%#<i>#first#</i>#%}% case instead.
adamc@237 132
adam@289 133 The problem with [trivial] could be %``%#"#solved#"#%''% by writing [solve [trivial]] instead, so that an error is signaled early on if something unexpected happens. However, the root problem is that the syntax of a tactic invocation does not imply how many subgoals it produces. Much more confusing instances of this problem are possible. For example, if a lemma [L] is modified to take an extra hypothesis, then uses of [apply L] will general more subgoals than before. Old unstructured proof scripts will become hopelessly jumbled, with tactics applied to inappropriate subgoals. Because of the lack of structure, there is usually relatively little to be gleaned from knowledge of the precise point in a proof script where an error is raised. *)
adamc@236 134
adamc@236 135 Reset times.
adamc@236 136
adamc@236 137 Fixpoint times (k : nat) (e : exp) : exp :=
adamc@236 138 match e with
adamc@236 139 | Const n => Const (k * n)
adamc@236 140 | Plus e1 e2 => Plus (times k e1) (times k e2)
adamc@236 141 end.
adamc@236 142
adamc@237 143 (** Many real developments try to make essentially unstructured proofs look structured by applying careful indentation conventions, idempotent case-marker tactics included soley to serve as documentation, and so on. All of these strategies suffer from the same kind of failure of abstraction that was just demonstrated. I like to say that if you find yourself caring about indentation in a proof script, it is a sign that the script is structured poorly.
adamc@236 144
adamc@236 145 We can rewrite the current proof with a single tactic. *)
adamc@236 146
adamc@236 147 Theorem eval_times : forall k e,
adamc@236 148 eval (times k e) = k * eval e.
adamc@236 149 induction e as [ | ? IHe1 ? IHe2 ]; [
adamc@236 150 trivial
adamc@236 151 | simpl; rewrite IHe1; rewrite IHe2; rewrite mult_plus_distr_l; trivial ].
adamc@236 152 Qed.
adamc@236 153
adamc@236 154 (** This is an improvement in robustness of the script. We no longer need to worry about tactics from one case being applied to a different case. Still, the proof script is not especially readable. Probably most readers would not find it helpful in explaining why the theorem is true.
adamc@236 155
adamc@236 156 The situation gets worse in considering extensions to the theorem we want to prove. Let us add multiplication nodes to our [exp] type and see how the proof fares. *)
adamc@236 157
adamc@236 158 Reset exp.
adamc@236 159
adamc@236 160 Inductive exp : Set :=
adamc@236 161 | Const : nat -> exp
adamc@236 162 | Plus : exp -> exp -> exp
adamc@236 163 | Mult : exp -> exp -> exp.
adamc@236 164
adamc@236 165 Fixpoint eval (e : exp) : nat :=
adamc@236 166 match e with
adamc@236 167 | Const n => n
adamc@236 168 | Plus e1 e2 => eval e1 + eval e2
adamc@236 169 | Mult e1 e2 => eval e1 * eval e2
adamc@236 170 end.
adamc@236 171
adamc@236 172 Fixpoint times (k : nat) (e : exp) : exp :=
adamc@236 173 match e with
adamc@236 174 | Const n => Const (k * n)
adamc@236 175 | Plus e1 e2 => Plus (times k e1) (times k e2)
adamc@236 176 | Mult e1 e2 => Mult (times k e1) e2
adamc@236 177 end.
adamc@236 178
adamc@236 179 Theorem eval_times : forall k e,
adamc@236 180 eval (times k e) = k * eval e.
adamc@236 181 (** [[
adamc@236 182 induction e as [ | ? IHe1 ? IHe2 ]; [
adamc@236 183 trivial
adamc@236 184 | simpl; rewrite IHe1; rewrite IHe2; rewrite mult_plus_distr_l; trivial ].
adamc@236 185
adamc@236 186 Error: Expects a disjunctive pattern with 3 branches.
adamc@236 187
adam@302 188 ]]
adam@302 189 *)
adamc@236 190
adamc@236 191 Abort.
adamc@236 192
adamc@236 193 (** Unsurprisingly, the old proof fails, because it explicitly says that there are two inductive cases. To update the script, we must, at a minimum, remember the order in which the inductive cases are generated, so that we can insert the new case in the appropriate place. Even then, it will be painful to add the case, because we cannot walk through proof steps interactively when they occur inside an explicit set of cases. *)
adamc@236 194
adamc@236 195 Theorem eval_times : forall k e,
adamc@236 196 eval (times k e) = k * eval e.
adamc@236 197 induction e as [ | ? IHe1 ? IHe2 | ? IHe1 ? IHe2 ]; [
adamc@236 198 trivial
adamc@236 199 | simpl; rewrite IHe1; rewrite IHe2; rewrite mult_plus_distr_l; trivial
adamc@236 200 | simpl; rewrite IHe1; rewrite mult_assoc; trivial ].
adamc@236 201 Qed.
adamc@236 202
adamc@236 203 (** Now we are in a position to see how much nicer is the style of proof that we have followed in most of this book. *)
adamc@236 204
adamc@236 205 Reset eval_times.
adamc@236 206
adamc@238 207 Hint Rewrite mult_plus_distr_l : cpdt.
adamc@238 208
adamc@236 209 Theorem eval_times : forall k e,
adamc@236 210 eval (times k e) = k * eval e.
adamc@236 211 induction e; crush.
adamc@236 212 Qed.
adamc@236 213
adamc@237 214 (** This style is motivated by a hard truth: one person's manual proof script is almost always mostly inscrutable to most everyone else. I claim that step-by-step formal proofs are a poor way of conveying information. Thus, we had might as well cut out the steps and automate as much as possible.
adamc@237 215
adamc@237 216 What about the illustrative value of proofs? Most informal proofs are read to convey the big ideas of proofs. How can reading [induction e; crush] convey any big ideas? My position is that any ideas that standard automation can find are not very big after all, and the %\textit{%#<i>#real#</i>#%}% big ideas should be expressed through lemmas that are added as hints.
adamc@237 217
adamc@237 218 An example should help illustrate what I mean. Consider this function, which rewrites an expression using associativity of addition and multiplication. *)
adamc@237 219
adamc@237 220 Fixpoint reassoc (e : exp) : exp :=
adamc@237 221 match e with
adamc@237 222 | Const _ => e
adamc@237 223 | Plus e1 e2 =>
adamc@237 224 let e1' := reassoc e1 in
adamc@237 225 let e2' := reassoc e2 in
adamc@237 226 match e2' with
adamc@237 227 | Plus e21 e22 => Plus (Plus e1' e21) e22
adamc@237 228 | _ => Plus e1' e2'
adamc@237 229 end
adamc@237 230 | Mult e1 e2 =>
adamc@237 231 let e1' := reassoc e1 in
adamc@237 232 let e2' := reassoc e2 in
adamc@237 233 match e2' with
adamc@237 234 | Mult e21 e22 => Mult (Mult e1' e21) e22
adamc@237 235 | _ => Mult e1' e2'
adamc@237 236 end
adamc@237 237 end.
adamc@237 238
adamc@237 239 Theorem reassoc_correct : forall e, eval (reassoc e) = eval e.
adamc@237 240 induction e; crush;
adamc@237 241 match goal with
adamc@237 242 | [ |- context[match ?E with Const _ => _ | Plus _ _ => _ | Mult _ _ => _ end] ] =>
adamc@237 243 destruct E; crush
adamc@237 244 end.
adamc@237 245
adamc@237 246 (** One subgoal remains:
adamc@237 247 [[
adamc@237 248 IHe2 : eval e3 * eval e4 = eval e2
adamc@237 249 ============================
adamc@237 250 eval e1 * eval e3 * eval e4 = eval e1 * eval e2
adamc@237 251
adamc@237 252 ]]
adamc@237 253
adamc@237 254 [crush] does not know how to finish this goal. We could finish the proof manually. *)
adamc@237 255
adamc@237 256 rewrite <- IHe2; crush.
adamc@237 257
adamc@237 258 (** However, the proof would be easier to understand and maintain if we separated this insight into a separate lemma. *)
adamc@237 259
adamc@237 260 Abort.
adamc@237 261
adamc@237 262 Lemma rewr : forall a b c d, b * c = d -> a * b * c = a * d.
adamc@237 263 crush.
adamc@237 264 Qed.
adamc@237 265
adamc@237 266 Hint Resolve rewr.
adamc@237 267
adamc@237 268 Theorem reassoc_correct : forall e, eval (reassoc e) = eval e.
adamc@237 269 induction e; crush;
adamc@237 270 match goal with
adamc@237 271 | [ |- context[match ?E with Const _ => _ | Plus _ _ => _ | Mult _ _ => _ end] ] =>
adamc@237 272 destruct E; crush
adamc@237 273 end.
adamc@237 274 Qed.
adamc@237 275
adamc@237 276 (** In the limit, a complicated inductive proof might rely on one hint for each inductive case. The lemma for each hint could restate the associated case. Compared to manual proof scripts, we arrive at more readable results. Scripts no longer need to depend on the order in which cases are generated. The lemmas are easier to digest separately than are fragments of tactic code, since lemma statements include complete proof contexts. Such contexts can only be extracted from monolithic manual proofs by stepping through scripts interactively.
adamc@237 277
adamc@237 278 The more common situation is that a large induction has several easy cases that automation makes short work of. In the remaining cases, automation performs some standard simplification. Among these cases, some may require quite involved proofs; such a case may deserve a hint lemma of its own, where the lemma statement may copy the simplified version of the case. Alternatively, the proof script for the main theorem may be extended with some automation code targeted at the specific case. Even such targeted scripting is more desirable than manual proving, because it may be read and understood without knowledge of a proof's hierarchical structure, case ordering, or name binding structure. *)
adamc@237 279
adamc@235 280
adamc@238 281 (** * Debugging and Maintaining Automation *)
adamc@238 282
adamc@238 283 (** Fully-automated proofs are desirable because they open up possibilities for automatic adaptation to changes of specification. A well-engineered script within a narrow domain can survive many changes to the formulation of the problem it solves. Still, as we are working with higher-order logic, most theorems fall within no obvious decidable theories. It is inevitable that most long-lived automated proofs will need updating.
adamc@238 284
adamc@238 285 Before we are ready to update our proofs, we need to write them in the first place. While fully-automated scripts are most robust to changes of specification, it is hard to write every new proof directly in that form. Instead, it is useful to begin a theorem with exploratory proving and then gradually refine it into a suitable automated form.
adamc@238 286
adamc@238 287 Consider this theorem from Chapter 7, which we begin by proving in a mostly manual way, invoking [crush] after each steop to discharge any low-hanging fruit. Our manual effort involves choosing which expressions to case-analyze on. *)
adamc@238 288
adamc@238 289 (* begin hide *)
adamc@238 290 Require Import MoreDep.
adamc@238 291 (* end hide *)
adamc@238 292
adamc@238 293 Theorem cfold_correct : forall t (e : exp t), expDenote e = expDenote (cfold e).
adamc@238 294 induction e; crush.
adamc@238 295
adamc@238 296 dep_destruct (cfold e1); crush.
adamc@238 297 dep_destruct (cfold e2); crush.
adamc@238 298
adamc@238 299 dep_destruct (cfold e1); crush.
adamc@238 300 dep_destruct (cfold e2); crush.
adamc@238 301
adamc@238 302 dep_destruct (cfold e1); crush.
adamc@238 303 dep_destruct (cfold e2); crush.
adamc@238 304
adamc@238 305 dep_destruct (cfold e1); crush.
adamc@238 306 dep_destruct (expDenote e1); crush.
adamc@238 307
adamc@238 308 dep_destruct (cfold e); crush.
adamc@238 309
adamc@238 310 dep_destruct (cfold e); crush.
adamc@238 311 Qed.
adamc@238 312
adamc@238 313 (** In this complete proof, it is hard to avoid noticing a pattern. We rework the proof, abstracting over the patterns we find. *)
adamc@238 314
adamc@238 315 Reset cfold_correct.
adamc@238 316
adamc@238 317 Theorem cfold_correct : forall t (e : exp t), expDenote e = expDenote (cfold e).
adamc@238 318 induction e; crush.
adamc@238 319
adamc@238 320 (** The expression we want to destruct here turns out to be the discriminee of a [match], and we can easily enough write a tactic that destructs all such expressions. *)
adamc@238 321
adamc@238 322 Ltac t :=
adamc@238 323 repeat (match goal with
adamc@238 324 | [ |- context[match ?E with NConst _ => _ | Plus _ _ => _
adamc@238 325 | Eq _ _ => _ | BConst _ => _ | And _ _ => _
adamc@238 326 | If _ _ _ _ => _ | Pair _ _ _ _ => _
adamc@238 327 | Fst _ _ _ => _ | Snd _ _ _ => _ end] ] =>
adamc@238 328 dep_destruct E
adamc@238 329 end; crush).
adamc@238 330
adamc@238 331 t.
adamc@238 332
adamc@238 333 (** This tactic invocation discharges the whole case. It does the same on the next two cases, but it gets stuck on the fourth case. *)
adamc@238 334
adamc@238 335 t.
adamc@238 336
adamc@238 337 t.
adamc@238 338
adamc@238 339 t.
adamc@238 340
adamc@238 341 (** The subgoal's conclusion is:
adamc@238 342 [[
adamc@238 343 ============================
adamc@238 344 (if expDenote e1 then expDenote (cfold e2) else expDenote (cfold e3)) =
adamc@238 345 expDenote (if expDenote e1 then cfold e2 else cfold e3)
adamc@238 346
adamc@238 347 ]]
adamc@238 348
adamc@238 349 We need to expand our [t] tactic to handle this case. *)
adamc@238 350
adamc@238 351 Ltac t' :=
adamc@238 352 repeat (match goal with
adamc@238 353 | [ |- context[match ?E with NConst _ => _ | Plus _ _ => _
adamc@238 354 | Eq _ _ => _ | BConst _ => _ | And _ _ => _
adamc@238 355 | If _ _ _ _ => _ | Pair _ _ _ _ => _
adamc@238 356 | Fst _ _ _ => _ | Snd _ _ _ => _ end] ] =>
adamc@238 357 dep_destruct E
adamc@238 358 | [ |- (if ?E then _ else _) = _ ] => destruct E
adamc@238 359 end; crush).
adamc@238 360
adamc@238 361 t'.
adamc@238 362
adamc@238 363 (** Now the goal is discharged, but [t'] has no effect on the next subgoal. *)
adamc@238 364
adamc@238 365 t'.
adamc@238 366
adamc@238 367 (** A final revision of [t] finishes the proof. *)
adamc@238 368
adamc@238 369 Ltac t'' :=
adamc@238 370 repeat (match goal with
adamc@238 371 | [ |- context[match ?E with NConst _ => _ | Plus _ _ => _
adamc@238 372 | Eq _ _ => _ | BConst _ => _ | And _ _ => _
adamc@238 373 | If _ _ _ _ => _ | Pair _ _ _ _ => _
adamc@238 374 | Fst _ _ _ => _ | Snd _ _ _ => _ end] ] =>
adamc@238 375 dep_destruct E
adamc@238 376 | [ |- (if ?E then _ else _) = _ ] => destruct E
adamc@238 377 | [ |- context[match pairOut ?E with Some _ => _
adamc@238 378 | None => _ end] ] =>
adamc@238 379 dep_destruct E
adamc@238 380 end; crush).
adamc@238 381
adamc@238 382 t''.
adamc@238 383
adamc@238 384 t''.
adamc@238 385 Qed.
adamc@238 386
adamc@238 387 (** We can take the final tactic and move it into the initial part of the proof script, arriving at a nicely-automated proof. *)
adamc@238 388
adamc@238 389 Reset t.
adamc@238 390
adamc@238 391 Theorem cfold_correct : forall t (e : exp t), expDenote e = expDenote (cfold e).
adamc@238 392 induction e; crush;
adamc@238 393 repeat (match goal with
adamc@238 394 | [ |- context[match ?E with NConst _ => _ | Plus _ _ => _
adamc@238 395 | Eq _ _ => _ | BConst _ => _ | And _ _ => _
adamc@238 396 | If _ _ _ _ => _ | Pair _ _ _ _ => _
adamc@238 397 | Fst _ _ _ => _ | Snd _ _ _ => _ end] ] =>
adamc@238 398 dep_destruct E
adamc@238 399 | [ |- (if ?E then _ else _) = _ ] => destruct E
adamc@238 400 | [ |- context[match pairOut ?E with Some _ => _
adamc@238 401 | None => _ end] ] =>
adamc@238 402 dep_destruct E
adamc@238 403 end; crush).
adamc@238 404 Qed.
adamc@238 405
adamc@240 406 (** Even after we put together nice automated proofs, we must deal with specification changes that can invalidate them. It is not generally possible to step through single-tactic proofs interactively. There is a command [Debug On] that lets us step through points in tactic execution, but the debugger tends to make counterintuitive choices of which points we would like to stop at, and per-point output is quite verbose, so most Coq users do not find this debugging mode very helpful. How are we to understand what has broken in a script that used to work?
adamc@240 407
adamc@240 408 An example helps demonstrate a useful approach. Consider what would have happened in our proof of [reassoc_correct] if we had first added an unfortunate rewriting hint. *)
adamc@240 409
adamc@240 410 Reset reassoc_correct.
adamc@240 411
adamc@240 412 Theorem confounder : forall e1 e2 e3,
adamc@240 413 eval e1 * eval e2 * eval e3 = eval e1 * (eval e2 + 1 - 1) * eval e3.
adamc@240 414 crush.
adamc@240 415 Qed.
adamc@240 416
adamc@240 417 Hint Rewrite confounder : cpdt.
adamc@240 418
adamc@240 419 Theorem reassoc_correct : forall e, eval (reassoc e) = eval e.
adamc@240 420 induction e; crush;
adamc@240 421 match goal with
adamc@240 422 | [ |- context[match ?E with Const _ => _ | Plus _ _ => _ | Mult _ _ => _ end] ] =>
adamc@240 423 destruct E; crush
adamc@240 424 end.
adamc@240 425
adamc@240 426 (** One subgoal remains:
adamc@240 427
adamc@240 428 [[
adamc@240 429 ============================
adamc@240 430 eval e1 * (eval e3 + 1 - 1) * eval e4 = eval e1 * eval e2
adamc@240 431
adamc@240 432 ]]
adamc@240 433
adamc@240 434 The poorly-chosen rewrite rule fired, changing the goal to a form where another hint no longer applies. Imagine that we are in the middle of a large development with many hints. How would we diagnose the problem? First, we might not be sure which case of the inductive proof has gone wrong. It is useful to separate out our automation procedure and apply it manually. *)
adamc@240 435
adamc@240 436 Restart.
adamc@240 437
adamc@240 438 Ltac t := crush; match goal with
adamc@240 439 | [ |- context[match ?E with Const _ => _ | Plus _ _ => _
adamc@240 440 | Mult _ _ => _ end] ] =>
adamc@240 441 destruct E; crush
adamc@240 442 end.
adamc@240 443
adamc@240 444 induction e.
adamc@240 445
adamc@240 446 (** Since we see the subgoals before any simplification occurs, it is clear that this is the case for constants. [t] makes short work of it. *)
adamc@240 447
adamc@240 448 t.
adamc@240 449
adamc@240 450 (** The next subgoal, for addition, is also discharged without trouble. *)
adamc@240 451
adamc@240 452 t.
adamc@240 453
adamc@240 454 (** The final subgoal is for multiplication, and it is here that we get stuck in the proof state summarized above. *)
adamc@240 455
adamc@240 456 t.
adamc@240 457
adamc@240 458 (** What is [t] doing to get us to this point? The [info] command can help us answer this kind of question. *)
adamc@240 459
adamc@240 460 (** remove printing * *)
adamc@240 461 Undo.
adamc@240 462 info t.
adamc@240 463 (** [[
adamc@240 464 == simpl in *; intuition; subst; autorewrite with cpdt in *;
adamc@240 465 simpl in *; intuition; subst; autorewrite with cpdt in *;
adamc@240 466 simpl in *; intuition; subst; destruct (reassoc e2).
adamc@240 467 simpl in *; intuition.
adamc@240 468
adamc@240 469 simpl in *; intuition.
adamc@240 470
adamc@240 471 simpl in *; intuition; subst; autorewrite with cpdt in *;
adamc@240 472 refine (eq_ind_r
adamc@240 473 (fun n : nat =>
adamc@240 474 n * (eval e3 + 1 - 1) * eval e4 = eval e1 * eval e2) _ IHe1);
adamc@240 475 autorewrite with cpdt in *; simpl in *; intuition;
adamc@240 476 subst; autorewrite with cpdt in *; simpl in *;
adamc@240 477 intuition; subst.
adamc@240 478
adamc@240 479 ]]
adamc@240 480
adamc@240 481 A detailed trace of [t]'s execution appears. Since we are using the very general [crush] tactic, many of these steps have no effect and only occur as instances of a more general strategy. We can copy-and-paste the details to see where things go wrong. *)
adamc@240 482
adamc@240 483 Undo.
adamc@240 484
adamc@240 485 (** We arbitrarily split the script into chunks. The first few seem not to do any harm. *)
adamc@240 486
adamc@240 487 simpl in *; intuition; subst; autorewrite with cpdt in *.
adamc@240 488 simpl in *; intuition; subst; autorewrite with cpdt in *.
adamc@240 489 simpl in *; intuition; subst; destruct (reassoc e2).
adamc@240 490 simpl in *; intuition.
adamc@240 491 simpl in *; intuition.
adamc@240 492
adamc@240 493 (** The next step is revealed as the culprit, bringing us to the final unproved subgoal. *)
adamc@240 494
adamc@240 495 simpl in *; intuition; subst; autorewrite with cpdt in *.
adamc@240 496
adamc@240 497 (** We can split the steps further to assign blame. *)
adamc@240 498
adamc@240 499 Undo.
adamc@240 500
adamc@240 501 simpl in *.
adamc@240 502 intuition.
adamc@240 503 subst.
adamc@240 504 autorewrite with cpdt in *.
adamc@240 505
adamc@240 506 (** It was the final of these four tactics that made the rewrite. We can find out exactly what happened. The [info] command presents hierarchical views of proof steps, and we can zoom down to a lower level of detail by applying [info] to one of the steps that appeared in the original trace. *)
adamc@240 507
adamc@240 508 Undo.
adamc@240 509
adamc@240 510 info autorewrite with cpdt in *.
adamc@240 511 (** [[
adamc@240 512 == refine (eq_ind_r (fun n : nat => n = eval e1 * eval e2) _
adamc@240 513 (confounder (reassoc e1) e3 e4)).
adamc@240 514
adamc@240 515 ]]
adamc@240 516
adamc@240 517 The way a rewrite is displayed is somewhat baroque, but we can see that theorem [confounder] is the final culprit. At this point, we could remove that hint, prove an alternate version of the key lemma [rewr], or come up with some other remedy. Fixing this kind of problem tends to be relatively easy once the problem is revealed. *)
adamc@240 518
adamc@240 519 Abort.
adamc@240 520
adamc@240 521 (** printing * $\times$ *)
adamc@240 522
adamc@241 523 (** Sometimes a change to a development has undesirable performance consequences, even if it does not prevent any old proof scripts from completing. If the performance consequences are severe enough, the proof scripts can be considered broken for practical purposes.
adamc@241 524
adamc@241 525 Here is one example of a performance surprise. *)
adamc@241 526
adamc@239 527 Section slow.
adamc@239 528 Hint Resolve trans_eq.
adamc@239 529
adamc@241 530 (** The central element of the problem is the addition of transitivity as a hint. With transitivity available, it is easy for proof search to wind up exploring exponential search spaces. We also add a few other arbitrary variables and hypotheses, designed to lead to trouble later. *)
adamc@241 531
adamc@239 532 Variable A : Set.
adamc@239 533 Variables P Q R S : A -> A -> Prop.
adamc@239 534 Variable f : A -> A.
adamc@239 535
adamc@239 536 Hypothesis H1 : forall x y, P x y -> Q x y -> R x y -> f x = f y.
adamc@239 537 Hypothesis H2 : forall x y, S x y -> R x y.
adamc@239 538
adamc@241 539 (** We prove a simple lemma very quickly, using the [Time] command to measure exactly how quickly. *)
adamc@241 540
adamc@239 541 Lemma slow : forall x y, P x y -> Q x y -> S x y -> f x = f y.
adamc@241 542 Time eauto 6.
adamc@241 543 (** [[
adamc@241 544 Finished transaction in 0. secs (0.068004u,0.s)
adam@302 545 ]]
adam@302 546 *)
adamc@241 547
adamc@239 548 Qed.
adamc@239 549
adamc@241 550 (** Now we add a different hypothesis, which is innocent enough; in fact, it is even provable as a theorem. *)
adamc@241 551
adamc@239 552 Hypothesis H3 : forall x y, x = y -> f x = f y.
adamc@239 553
adamc@239 554 Lemma slow' : forall x y, P x y -> Q x y -> S x y -> f x = f y.
adamc@241 555 Time eauto 6.
adamc@241 556 (** [[
adamc@241 557 Finished transaction in 2. secs (1.264079u,0.s)
adamc@241 558
adamc@241 559 ]]
adamc@241 560
adamc@241 561 Why has the search time gone up so much? The [info] command is not much help, since it only shows the result of search, not all of the paths that turned out to be worthless. *)
adamc@241 562
adamc@241 563 Restart.
adamc@241 564 info eauto 6.
adamc@241 565 (** [[
adamc@241 566 == intro x; intro y; intro H; intro H0; intro H4;
adamc@241 567 simple eapply trans_eq.
adamc@241 568 simple apply refl_equal.
adamc@241 569
adamc@241 570 simple eapply trans_eq.
adamc@241 571 simple apply refl_equal.
adamc@241 572
adamc@241 573 simple eapply trans_eq.
adamc@241 574 simple apply refl_equal.
adamc@241 575
adamc@241 576 simple apply H1.
adamc@241 577 eexact H.
adamc@241 578
adamc@241 579 eexact H0.
adamc@241 580
adamc@241 581 simple apply H2; eexact H4.
adamc@241 582
adamc@241 583 ]]
adamc@241 584
adamc@241 585 This output does not tell us why proof search takes so long, but it does provide a clue that would be useful if we had forgotten that we added transitivity as a hint. The [eauto] tactic is applying depth-first search, and the proof script where the real action is ends up buried inside a chain of pointless invocations of transitivity, where each invocation uses reflexivity to discharge one subgoal. Each increment to the depth argument to [eauto] adds another silly use of transitivity. This wasted proof effort only adds linear time overhead, as long as proof search never makes false steps. No false steps were made before we added the new hypothesis, but somehow the addition made possible a new faulty path. To understand which paths we enabled, we can use the [debug] command. *)
adamc@241 586
adamc@241 587 Restart.
adamc@241 588 debug eauto 6.
adamc@241 589
adamc@241 590 (** The output is a large proof tree. The beginning of the tree is enough to reveal what is happening:
adamc@241 591
adamc@241 592 [[
adamc@241 593 1 depth=6
adamc@241 594 1.1 depth=6 intro
adamc@241 595 1.1.1 depth=6 intro
adamc@241 596 1.1.1.1 depth=6 intro
adamc@241 597 1.1.1.1.1 depth=6 intro
adamc@241 598 1.1.1.1.1.1 depth=6 intro
adamc@241 599 1.1.1.1.1.1.1 depth=5 apply H3
adamc@241 600 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 depth=4 eapply trans_eq
adamc@241 601 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 depth=4 apply refl_equal
adamc@241 602 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 depth=3 eapply trans_eq
adamc@241 603 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 depth=3 apply refl_equal
adamc@241 604 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 depth=2 eapply trans_eq
adamc@241 605 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 depth=2 apply refl_equal
adamc@241 606 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 depth=1 eapply trans_eq
adamc@241 607 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 depth=1 apply refl_equal
adamc@241 608 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 depth=0 eapply trans_eq
adamc@241 609 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 depth=1 apply sym_eq ; trivial
adamc@241 610 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 depth=0 eapply trans_eq
adamc@241 611 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3 depth=0 eapply trans_eq
adamc@241 612 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 depth=2 apply sym_eq ; trivial
adamc@241 613 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 depth=1 eapply trans_eq
adamc@241 614 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 depth=1 apply refl_equal
adamc@241 615 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 depth=0 eapply trans_eq
adamc@241 616 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2 depth=1 apply sym_eq ; trivial
adamc@241 617 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1 depth=0 eapply trans_eq
adamc@241 618 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.3 depth=0 eapply trans_eq
adamc@241 619
adamc@241 620 ]]
adamc@241 621
adamc@241 622 The first choice [eauto] makes is to apply [H3], since [H3] has the fewest hypotheses of all of the hypotheses and hints that match. However, it turns out that the single hypothesis generated is unprovable. That does not stop [eauto] from trying to prove it with an exponentially-sized tree of applications of transitivity, reflexivity, and symmetry of equality. It is the children of the initial [apply H3] that account for all of the noticeable time in proof execution. In a more realistic development, we might use this output of [info] to realize that adding transitivity as a hint was a bad idea. *)
adamc@241 623
adamc@239 624 Qed.
adamc@239 625 End slow.
adamc@239 626
adamc@241 627 (** It is also easy to end up with a proof script that uses too much memory. As tactics run, they avoid generating proof terms, since serious proof search will consider many possible avenues, and we do not want to built proof terms for subproofs that end up unused. Instead, tactic execution maintains %\textit{%#<i>#thunks#</i>#%}% (suspended computations, represented with closures), such that a tactic's proof-producing thunk is only executed when we run [Qed]. These thunks can use up large amounts of space, such that a proof script exhausts available memory, even when we know that we could have used much less memory by forcing some thunks earlier.
adamc@241 628
adamc@241 629 The [abstract] tactical helps us force thunks by proving some subgoals as their own lemmas. For instance, a proof [induction x; crush] can in many cases be made to use significantly less peak memory by changing it to [induction x; abstract crush]. The main limitation of [abstract] is that it can only be applied to subgoals that are proved completely, with no undetermined unification variables remaining. Still, many large automated proofs can realize vast memory savings via [abstract]. *)
adamc@241 630
adamc@238 631
adamc@235 632 (** * Modules *)
adamc@235 633
adamc@242 634 (** Last chapter's examples of proof by reflection demonstrate opportunities for implementing abstract proof strategies with stronger formal guarantees than can be had with Ltac scripting. Coq's %\textit{%#<i>#module system#</i>#%}% provides another tool for more rigorous development of generic theorems. This feature is inspired by the module systems found in Standard ML and Objective Caml, and the discussion that follows assumes familiarity with the basics of one of those systems.
adamc@242 635
adamc@242 636 ML modules facilitate the grouping of abstract types with operations over those types. Moreover, there is support for %\textit{%#<i>#functors#</i>#%}%, which are functions from modules to modules. A canonical example of a functor is one that builds a data structure implementation from a module that describes a domain of keys and its associated comparison operations.
adamc@242 637
adamc@242 638 When we add modules to a base language with dependent types, it becomes possible to use modules and functors to formalize kinds of reasoning that are common in algebra. For instance, this module signature captures the essence of the algebraic structure known as a group. A group consists of a carrier set [G], an associative binary operation [f], a left identity element [e] for [f], and an operation [i] that is a left inverse for [f]. *)
adamc@242 639
adamc@235 640 Module Type GROUP.
adamc@235 641 Parameter G : Set.
adamc@235 642 Parameter f : G -> G -> G.
adamc@235 643 Parameter e : G.
adamc@235 644 Parameter i : G -> G.
adamc@235 645
adamc@235 646 Axiom assoc : forall a b c, f (f a b) c = f a (f b c).
adamc@235 647 Axiom ident : forall a, f e a = a.
adamc@235 648 Axiom inverse : forall a, f (i a) a = e.
adamc@235 649 End GROUP.
adamc@235 650
adamc@242 651 (** Many useful theorems hold of arbitrary groups. We capture some such theorem statements in another module signature. *)
adamc@242 652
adamc@235 653 Module Type GROUP_THEOREMS.
adamc@235 654 Declare Module M : GROUP.
adamc@235 655
adamc@235 656 Axiom ident' : forall a, M.f a M.e = a.
adamc@235 657
adamc@235 658 Axiom inverse' : forall a, M.f a (M.i a) = M.e.
adamc@235 659
adamc@235 660 Axiom unique_ident : forall e', (forall a, M.f e' a = a) -> e' = M.e.
adamc@235 661 End GROUP_THEOREMS.
adamc@235 662
adamc@242 663 (** We implement generic proofs of these theorems with a functor, whose input is an arbitrary group [M]. The proofs are completely manual, since it would take some effort to build suitable generic automation; rather, these theorems can serve as a basis for an automated procedure for simplifying group expressions, along the lines of the procedure for monoids from the last chapter. We take the proofs from the Wikipedia page on elementary group theory. *)
adamc@242 664
adamc@239 665 Module Group (M : GROUP) : GROUP_THEOREMS with Module M := M.
adamc@235 666 Module M := M.
adamc@235 667
adamc@235 668 Import M.
adamc@235 669
adamc@235 670 Theorem inverse' : forall a, f a (i a) = e.
adamc@235 671 intro.
adamc@235 672 rewrite <- (ident (f a (i a))).
adamc@235 673 rewrite <- (inverse (f a (i a))) at 1.
adamc@235 674 rewrite assoc.
adamc@235 675 rewrite assoc.
adamc@235 676 rewrite <- (assoc (i a) a (i a)).
adamc@235 677 rewrite inverse.
adamc@235 678 rewrite ident.
adamc@235 679 apply inverse.
adamc@235 680 Qed.
adamc@235 681
adamc@235 682 Theorem ident' : forall a, f a e = a.
adamc@235 683 intro.
adamc@235 684 rewrite <- (inverse a).
adamc@235 685 rewrite <- assoc.
adamc@235 686 rewrite inverse'.
adamc@235 687 apply ident.
adamc@235 688 Qed.
adamc@235 689
adamc@235 690 Theorem unique_ident : forall e', (forall a, M.f e' a = a) -> e' = M.e.
adamc@235 691 intros.
adamc@235 692 rewrite <- (H e).
adamc@235 693 symmetry.
adamc@235 694 apply ident'.
adamc@235 695 Qed.
adamc@235 696 End Group.
adamc@239 697
adamc@242 698 (** We can show that the integers with [+] form a group. *)
adamc@242 699
adamc@239 700 Require Import ZArith.
adamc@239 701 Open Scope Z_scope.
adamc@239 702
adamc@239 703 Module Int.
adamc@239 704 Definition G := Z.
adamc@239 705 Definition f x y := x + y.
adamc@239 706 Definition e := 0.
adamc@239 707 Definition i x := -x.
adamc@239 708
adamc@239 709 Theorem assoc : forall a b c, f (f a b) c = f a (f b c).
adamc@239 710 unfold f; crush.
adamc@239 711 Qed.
adamc@239 712 Theorem ident : forall a, f e a = a.
adamc@239 713 unfold f, e; crush.
adamc@239 714 Qed.
adamc@239 715 Theorem inverse : forall a, f (i a) a = e.
adamc@239 716 unfold f, i, e; crush.
adamc@239 717 Qed.
adamc@239 718 End Int.
adamc@239 719
adamc@242 720 (** Next, we can produce integer-specific versions of the generic group theorems. *)
adamc@242 721
adamc@239 722 Module IntTheorems := Group(Int).
adamc@239 723
adamc@239 724 Check IntTheorems.unique_ident.
adamc@242 725 (** %\vspace{-.15in}% [[
adamc@242 726 IntTheorems.unique_ident
adamc@242 727 : forall e' : Int.G, (forall a : Int.G, Int.f e' a = a) -> e' = Int.e
adam@302 728 ]]
adam@302 729 *)
adamc@239 730
adamc@239 731 Theorem unique_ident : forall e', (forall a, e' + a = a) -> e' = 0.
adamc@239 732 exact IntTheorems.unique_ident.
adamc@239 733 Qed.
adamc@242 734
adamc@242 735 (** As in ML, the module system provides an effective way to structure large developments. Unlike in ML, Coq modules add no expressiveness; we can implement any module as an inhabitant of a dependent record type. It is the second-class nature of modules that makes them easier to use than dependent records in many case. Because modules may only be used in quite restricted ways, it is easier to support convenient module coding through special commands and editing modes, as the above example demonstrates. An isomorphic implementation with records would have suffered from lack of such conveniences as module subtyping and importation of the fields of a module. *)
adamc@243 736
adamc@243 737
adamc@243 738 (** * Build Processes *)
adamc@243 739
adamc@243 740 (** As in software development, large Coq projects are much more manageable when split across multiple files and when decomposed into libraries. Coq and Proof General provide very good support for these activities.
adamc@243 741
adamc@243 742 Consider a library that we will name [Lib], housed in directory %\texttt{%#<tt>#LIB#</tt>#%}% and split between files %\texttt{%#<tt>#A.v#</tt>#%}%, %\texttt{%#<tt>#B.v#</tt>#%}%, and %\texttt{%#<tt>#C.v#</tt>#%}%. A simple Makefile will compile the library, relying on the standard Coq tool %\texttt{%#<tt>#coq_makefile#</tt>#%}% to do the hard work.
adamc@243 743
adamc@243 744 <<
adamc@243 745 MODULES := A B C
adamc@243 746 VS := $(MODULES:%=%.v)
adamc@243 747
adamc@243 748 .PHONY: coq clean
adamc@243 749
adamc@243 750 coq: Makefile.coq
adamc@243 751 make -f Makefile.coq
adamc@243 752
adamc@243 753 Makefile.coq: Makefile $(VS)
adamc@243 754 coq_makefile -R . Lib $(VS) -o Makefile.coq
adamc@243 755
adamc@243 756 clean:: Makefile.coq
adamc@243 757 make -f Makefile.coq clean
adamc@243 758 rm -f Makefile.coq
adamc@243 759 >>
adamc@243 760
adamc@243 761 The Makefile begins by defining a variable %\texttt{%#<tt>#VS#</tt>#%}% holding the list of filenames to be included in the project. The primary target is %\texttt{%#<tt>#coq#</tt>#%}%, which depends on the construction of an auxiliary Makefile called %\texttt{%#<tt>#Makefile.coq#</tt>#%}%. Another rule explains how to build that file. We call %\texttt{%#<tt>#coq_makefile#</tt>#%}%, using the %\texttt{%#<tt>#-R#</tt>#%}% flag to specify that files in the current directory should be considered to belong to the library [Lib]. This Makefile will build a compiled version of each module, such that %\texttt{%#<tt>#X.v#</tt>#%}% is compiled into %\texttt{%#<tt>#X.vo#</tt>#%}%.
adamc@243 762
adamc@243 763 Now code in %\texttt{%#<tt>#B.v#</tt>#%}% may refer to definitions in %\texttt{%#<tt>#A.v#</tt>#%}% after running
adamc@243 764
adamc@243 765 [[
adamc@243 766 Require Import Lib.A.
adamc@243 767
adamc@243 768 ]]
adamc@243 769
adamc@243 770 Library [Lib] is presented as a module, containing a submodule [A], which contains the definitions from %\texttt{%#<tt>#A.v#</tt>#%}%. These are genuine modules in the sense of Coq's module system, and they may be passed to functors and so on.
adamc@243 771
adamc@243 772 [Require Import] is a convenient combination of two more primitive commands. [Require] finds the %\texttt{%#<tt>#.vo#</tt>#%}% file containing the named module, ensuring that the module is loaded into memory. [Import] loads all top-level definitions of the named module into the current namespace, and it may be used with local modules that do not have corresponding %\texttt{%#<tt>#.vo#</tt>#%}% files. Another command, [Load], is for inserting the contents of a named file verbatim. It is generally better to use the module-based commands, since they avoid rerunning proof scripts, and they facilitate reorganization of directory structure without the need to change code.
adamc@243 773
adamc@243 774 Now we would like to use our library from a different development, called [Client] and found in directory %\texttt{%#<tt>#CLIENT#</tt>#%}%, which has its own Makefile.
adamc@243 775
adamc@243 776 <<
adamc@243 777 MODULES := D E
adamc@243 778 VS := $(MODULES:%=%.v)
adamc@243 779
adamc@243 780 .PHONY: coq clean
adamc@243 781
adamc@243 782 coq: Makefile.coq
adamc@243 783 make -f Makefile.coq
adamc@243 784
adamc@243 785 Makefile.coq: Makefile $(VS)
adamc@243 786 coq_makefile -R LIB Lib -R . Client $(VS) -o Makefile.coq
adamc@243 787
adamc@243 788 clean:: Makefile.coq
adamc@243 789 make -f Makefile.coq clean
adamc@243 790 rm -f Makefile.coq
adamc@243 791 >>
adamc@243 792
adamc@243 793 We change the %\texttt{%#<tt>#coq_makefile#</tt>#%}% call to indicate where the library [Lib] is found. Now %\texttt{%#<tt>#D.v#</tt>#%}% and %\texttt{%#<tt>#E.v#</tt>#%}% can refer to definitions from [Lib] module [A] after running
adamc@243 794
adamc@243 795 [[
adamc@243 796 Require Import Lib.A.
adamc@243 797
adamc@243 798 ]]
adamc@243 799
adamc@243 800 and %\texttt{%#<tt>#E.v#</tt>#%}% can refer to definitions from %\texttt{%#<tt>#D.v#</tt>#%}% by running
adamc@243 801
adamc@243 802 [[
adamc@243 803 Require Import Client.D.
adamc@243 804
adamc@243 805 ]]
adamc@243 806
adamc@243 807 It can be useful to split a library into several files, but it is also inconvenient for client code to import library modules individually. We can get the best of both worlds by, for example, adding an extra source file %\texttt{%#<tt>#Lib.v#</tt>#%}% to [Lib]'s directory and Makefile.
adamc@243 808
adamc@243 809 [[
adamc@243 810 Require Export Lib.A Lib.B Lib.C.
adamc@243 811
adamc@243 812 ]]
adamc@243 813
adamc@243 814 Now client code can import all definitions from all of [Lib]'s modules simply by running
adamc@243 815
adamc@243 816 [[
adamc@243 817 Require Import Lib.
adamc@243 818
adamc@243 819 ]]
adamc@243 820
adamc@243 821 The two Makefiles above share a lot of code, so, in practice, it is useful to define a common Makefile that is included by multiple library-specific Makefiles.
adamc@243 822
adamc@243 823 %\medskip%
adamc@243 824
adamc@243 825 The remaining ingredient is the proper way of editing library code files in Proof General. Recall this snippet of %\texttt{%#<tt>#.emacs#</tt>#%}% code from Chapter 2, which tells Proof General where to find the library associated with this book.
adamc@243 826
adamc@243 827 <<
adamc@243 828 (custom-set-variables
adamc@243 829 ...
adamc@243 830 '(coq-prog-args '("-I" "/path/to/cpdt/src"))
adamc@243 831 ...
adamc@243 832 )
adamc@243 833 >>
adamc@243 834
adamc@243 835 To do interactive editing of our current example, we just need to change the flags to point to the right places.
adamc@243 836
adamc@243 837 <<
adamc@243 838 (custom-set-variables
adamc@243 839 ...
adamc@243 840 ; '(coq-prog-args '("-I" "/path/to/cpdt/src"))
adamc@243 841 '(coq-prog-args '("-R" "LIB" "Lib" "-R" "CLIENT" "Client"))
adamc@243 842 ...
adamc@243 843 )
adamc@243 844 >>
adamc@243 845
adamc@243 846 When working on multiple projects, it is useful to leave multiple versions of this setting in your %\texttt{%#<tt>#.emacs#</tt>#%}% file, commenting out all but one of them at any moment in time. To switch between projects, change the commenting structure and restart Emacs. *)