--- a/src/Large.v	Sun May 06 17:15:15 2012 -0400
+++ b/src/Large.v	Wed Jun 06 11:25:13 2012 -0400
@@ -103,7 +103,7 @@
   trivial.
 Qed.
 
-(** We pass %\index{tactics!induction}%[induction] an %\index{intro pattern}\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.
+(** We pass %\index{tactics!induction}%[induction] an %\index{intro pattern}%_intro pattern_, 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.
 
    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. *)
 
@@ -133,7 +133,7 @@
 
 Abort.
 
-(** 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.  The invocation [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.
+(** 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.  The invocation [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 _first_ case instead.
 
    The problem with [trivial] could be %``%#"#solved#"#%''% by writing, e.g., [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 generate 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. *)
 
@@ -220,7 +220,7 @@
 
 (** 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.
 
-   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.
+   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 _real_ big ideas should be expressed through lemmas that are added as hints.
 
    An example should help illustrate what I mean.  Consider this function, which rewrites an expression using associativity of addition and multiplication. *)
 
@@ -285,11 +285,11 @@
 
    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.
 
-   A competing alternative to the common style of Coq tactics is the %\index{declarative proof scripts}\emph{%#<i>#declarative#</i>#%}% style, most frequently associated today with the %\index{Isar}%Isar%~\cite{Isar}% language.  A declarative proof script is very explicit about subgoal structure and introduction of local names, aiming for human readability.  The coding of proof automation is taken to be outside the scope of the proof language, an assumption related to the idea that it is not worth building new automation for each serious theorem.  I have shown in this book many examples of theorem-specific automation, which I believe is crucial for scaling to significant results.  Declarative proof scripts make it easier to read scripts to modify them for theorem statement changes, but the alternate %\index{adaptive proof scripts}\emph{%#<i>#adaptive#</i>#%}% style from this book allows use of the %\emph{%#<i>#same#</i>#%}% scripts for many versions of a theorem.
+   A competing alternative to the common style of Coq tactics is the %\index{declarative proof scripts}%_declarative_ style, most frequently associated today with the %\index{Isar}%Isar%~\cite{Isar}% language.  A declarative proof script is very explicit about subgoal structure and introduction of local names, aiming for human readability.  The coding of proof automation is taken to be outside the scope of the proof language, an assumption related to the idea that it is not worth building new automation for each serious theorem.  I have shown in this book many examples of theorem-specific automation, which I believe is crucial for scaling to significant results.  Declarative proof scripts make it easier to read scripts to modify them for theorem statement changes, but the alternate %\index{adaptive proof scripts}%_adaptive_ style from this book allows use of the _same_ scripts for many versions of a theorem.
 
    Perhaps I am a pessimist for thinking that fully formal proofs will inevitably consist of details that are uninteresting to people, but it is my preference to focus on conveying proof-specific details through choice of lemmas.  Additionally, adaptive Ltac scripts contain bits of automation that can be understood in isolation.  For instance, in a big [repeat match] loop, each case can generally be digested separately, which is a big contrast from trying to understand the hierarchical structure of a script in a more common style.  Adaptive scripts rely on variable binding, but generally only over very small scopes, whereas understanding a traditional script requires tracking the identities of local variables potentially across pages of code.
 
-   One might also wonder why it makes sense to prove all theorems automatically (in the sense of adaptive proof scripts) but not construct all programs automatically.  My view there is that %\emph{%#<i>#program synthesis#</i>#%}% is a very useful idea that deserves broader application!  In practice, there are difficult obstacles in the way of finding a program automatically from its specification.  A typical specification is not exhaustive in its description of program properties.  For instance, details of performance on particular machine architectures are often omitted.  As a result, a synthesized program may be correct in some sense while suffering from deficiencies in other senses.  Program synthesis research will continue to come up with ways of dealing with this problem, but the situation for theorem proving is fundamentally similar.  Following mathematical practice, the only property of a formal proof that we care about is which theorem it proves, and it is trivial to check this property automatically.  In other words, with a simple criterion for what makes a proof acceptable, automatic search is straightforward.  Of course, in practice we also care about understandability of proofs to facilitate long-term maintenance, and that is just what the techniques outlined above are meant to support, and the next section gives some related advice. *)
+   One might also wonder why it makes sense to prove all theorems automatically (in the sense of adaptive proof scripts) but not construct all programs automatically.  My view there is that _program synthesis_ is a very useful idea that deserves broader application!  In practice, there are difficult obstacles in the way of finding a program automatically from its specification.  A typical specification is not exhaustive in its description of program properties.  For instance, details of performance on particular machine architectures are often omitted.  As a result, a synthesized program may be correct in some sense while suffering from deficiencies in other senses.  Program synthesis research will continue to come up with ways of dealing with this problem, but the situation for theorem proving is fundamentally different.  Following mathematical practice, the only property of a formal proof that we care about is which theorem it proves, and it is trivial to check this property automatically.  In other words, with a simple criterion for what makes a proof acceptable, automatic search is straightforward.  Of course, in practice we also care about understandability of proofs to facilitate long-term maintenance, and that is just what the techniques outlined above are meant to support, and the next section gives some related advice. *)
 
 
 (** * Debugging and Maintaining Automation *)
@@ -639,16 +639,16 @@
 
 (** As aggravating as the above situation may be, there is greater aggravation to be had from importing library modules with commands like %\index{Vernacular commands!Require Import}%[Require Import].  Such a command imports not just the Gallina terms from a module, but also all the hints for [auto], [eauto], and [autorewrite].  Some very recent versions of Coq include mechanisms for removing hints from databases, but the proper solution is to be very conservative in exporting hints from modules.  Consider putting hints in named databases, so that they may be used only when called upon explicitly, as demonstrated in Chapter 13.
 
-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 build proof terms for subproofs that end up unused.  Instead, tactic execution maintains %\index{thunks}\textit{%#<i>#thunks#</i>#%}% (suspended computations, represented with closures), such that a tactic's proof-producing thunk is only executed when we run %\index{Vernacular commands!Qed}%[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.
+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 build proof terms for subproofs that end up unused.  Instead, tactic execution maintains %\index{thunks}%_thunks_ (suspended computations, represented with closures), such that a tactic's proof-producing thunk is only executed when we run %\index{Vernacular commands!Qed}%[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.
 
    The %\index{tactics!abstract}%[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]. *)
 
 
 (** * Modules *)
 
-(** 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%~\cite{modules}% and Objective Caml, and the discussion that follows assumes familiarity with the basics of one of those systems.
+(** 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 _module system_ provides another tool for more rigorous development of generic theorems.  This feature is inspired by the module systems found in Standard ML%~\cite{modules}% and Objective Caml, and the discussion that follows assumes familiarity with the basics of one of those systems.
 
-   ML modules facilitate the grouping of %\index{abstract type}%abstract types with operations over those types.  Moreover, there is support for %\index{functor}\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.
+   ML modules facilitate the grouping of %\index{abstract type}%abstract types with operations over those types.  Moreover, there is support for %\index{functor}%_functors_, 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.
 
    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].%\index{Vernacular commands!Module Type}% *)
 
@@ -678,7 +678,7 @@
 (** We implement generic proofs of these theorems with a functor, whose input is an arbitrary group [M]. %\index{Vernacular commands!Module}% *)
 
 Module GroupProofs (M : GROUP) : GROUP_THEOREMS with Module M := M.
-  (** As in ML, Coq provides multiple options for ascribing signatures to modules.  Here we use just the colon operator, which implements %\index{opaque ascription}\emph{%#<i>#opaque ascription#</i>#%}%, hiding all details of the module not exposed by the signature.  Another option is %\index{transparent ascription}\emph{%#<i>#transparent ascription#</i>#%}% via the [<:] operator, which checks for signature compatibility without hiding implementation details.  Here we stick with opaque ascription but employ the [with] operation to add more detail to a signature, exposing just those implementation details that we need to.  For instance, here we expose the underlying group representation set and operator definitions.  Without such a refinement, we would get an output module proving theorems about some unknown group, which is not very useful.  Also note that opaque ascription can in Coq have some undesirable consequences without analogues in ML, since not just the types but also the %\emph{%#<i>#definitions#</i>#%}% of identifiers have significance in type checking and theorem proving. *)
+  (** As in ML, Coq provides multiple options for ascribing signatures to modules.  Here we use just the colon operator, which implements %\index{opaque ascription}%_opaque ascription_, hiding all details of the module not exposed by the signature.  Another option is %\index{transparent ascription}%_transparent ascription_ via the [<:] operator, which checks for signature compatibility without hiding implementation details.  Here we stick with opaque ascription but employ the [with] operation to add more detail to a signature, exposing just those implementation details that we need to.  For instance, here we expose the underlying group representation set and operator definitions.  Without such a refinement, we would get an output module proving theorems about some unknown group, which is not very useful.  Also note that opaque ascription can in Coq have some undesirable consequences without analogues in ML, since not just the types but also the _definitions_ of identifiers have significance in type checking and theorem proving. *)
 
   Module M := M.
   (** To ensure that the module we are building meets the [GROUP_THEOREMS] signature, we add an extra local name for [M], the functor argument. *)
@@ -854,7 +854,7 @@
 
    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.
 
-   Alternatively, we can revisit the directory-local settings approach and write the following into a file %\texttt{%#<tt>#.dir-locals.el#</tt>#%}% in %\texttt{%#<i>#CLIENT#</i>#%}%:
+   Alternatively, we can revisit the directory-local settings approach and write the following into a file %\texttt{%#<tt>#.dir-locals.el#</tt>#%}% in %\texttt{%#<tt>#CLIENT#</tt>#%}%:
 
 <<
 ((coq-mode . ((coq-prog-args .