Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

coq-club - Re: [Coq-Club] Deferring proofs in definitions

coq-club AT inria.fr

Subject: The Coq mailing list

List archive

Re: [Coq-Club] Deferring proofs in definitions


chronological Thread 
  • From: St�phane Lescuyer <stephane.lescuyer AT inria.fr>
  • To: AUGER Cedric <Cedric.Auger AT lri.fr>
  • Cc: Daniel Schepler <dschepler AT gmail.com>, Coq Club <coq-club AT inria.fr>
  • Subject: Re: [Coq-Club] Deferring proofs in definitions
  • Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 10:58:51 +0200

> I second Cedric's answer, you should try refine or Program. Note that
> there is probably a nicer way to do wha
Sorry, premature sending :)

So I was saying, unless this is really what you want to do, you should
maybe try and rethink what you're doing in order to avoid mixing
definitions and proofs.
A final note: you can use refine and still have proofs opaque, by
using the abstract tactic: abstract (<tactic>) applies tactic, which
should solve the current goal, and saves it as an opaque lemma. The
downside is you need to prove every subgoal in one tactic, or one
chain of tactic. If you have trouble with that particular point, ask
Adam Chlipala :)

S.
-- 
I'm the kind of guy that until it happens, I won't worry about it. -
R.H. RoY05, MVP06



Archive powered by MhonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page