Mercurial > cpdt > repo
diff src/Match.v @ 465:4320c1a967c2
Spell check
author | Adam Chlipala <adam@chlipala.net> |
---|---|
date | Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:26:26 -0400 |
parents | 38549f152568 |
children | 1fd4109f7b31 |
line wrap: on
line diff
--- a/src/Match.v Wed Aug 29 17:17:17 2012 -0400 +++ b/src/Match.v Wed Aug 29 18:26:26 2012 -0400 @@ -673,7 +673,7 @@ imp. Qed. -(** We will also want a "base case" lemma for finishing proofs where cancelation has removed every constituent of the conclusion. *) +(** We will also want a "base case" lemma for finishing proofs where cancellation has removed every constituent of the conclusion. *) Theorem imp_True : forall P, P --> True. @@ -751,7 +751,7 @@ (** 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. - 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 instantiantiations 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. + 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. Before we are ready to write a tactic, we can try out its ingredients one at a time. *)