Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

coq-club - [Coq-Club] Strange Ltac behavior

coq-club AT inria.fr

Subject: The Coq mailing list

List archive

[Coq-Club] Strange Ltac behavior


chronological Thread 
  • From: Thomas Braibant <thomas.braibant AT gmail.com>
  • To: coq-club <coq-club AT inria.fr>
  • Subject: [Coq-Club] Strange Ltac behavior
  • Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 17:35:29 +0100
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=wnOx06D5/rbNLB+O25nEJKzFlyMu9kp3Q6gAVv1vk9kdV7B6llBJEBUMKlYf6pngfl kvYi+kQutteNzwk/y3Rx16HkZa2dO2O7M1BHLotjx6ICdT64+vbHbps7ItaTXPAx+U7Q pXQLC6e+i0ZS7dhc9+Z0H1d9hj+HaOb/wRr+I=

Hi,

I have a problem that can be reduced to the snippet below.

Section t.
  Variable T : nat -> Type.
  Variable f : forall n, T n -> Prop.
  Goal forall n m (x : T n) (y : T m), f n (x).
    intros.
    match goal with
      | v : T ?n |- context name [?v] => idtac v (* prints [f n x],
while I would like [x]*)
    end.
End.

I do not see any mean to use the variable v (as an hypothesis) to
constrain the match in the goal, but I am maybe missing something
obvious. Any help welcome.

With best regards,
thomas



Archive powered by MhonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page