coq-club AT inria.fr
Subject: The Coq mailing list
List archive
- From: t x <txrev319 AT gmail.com>
- To: Jason Gross <jasongross9 AT gmail.com>
- Cc: coq-club <coq-club AT inria.fr>
- Subject: Re: [Coq-Club] Using Program/Refine to allow "_" in a definition
- Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 08:10:25 +0000
Thanks -- first solution is exactly what I wnated. For some stupid reason, I used to think Program only worked with Fixpoint.
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 5:23 AM, Jason Gross <jasongross9 AT gmail.com> wrote:
Program Definition a' := Build_Foo 5 _.Next Obligation.exact lem__5_lt_10.Qed.(* or *)Definition a'' : Foo.Proof.refine (Build_Foo 5 _).exact lem__5_lt_10.Defined.-Jason
On Sunday, September 1, 2013, t x wrote:Thanks!Is the above possible?Hi,Here is my min fail case.Require Import ZArith Omega. Local Open Scope Z_scope. Record Foo := { n : Z; H : n < 10 }. Lemma lem__5_lt_10: 5 < 10. Proof. omega. Qed. (* this line works *) Definition a := Build_Foo 5 lem__5_lt_10. (* this line does not work *) Definition a' := Build_Foo 5 _. (* Question: is there a way to use Program / refine so that I can write the above? In particular, I want to: * fill in the proof after the "Build_Foo" I do NOT want to: * define a lemma before hand to use. *)
- [Coq-Club] Using Program/Refine to allow "_" in a definition, t x, 09/01/2013
- Re: [Coq-Club] Using Program/Refine to allow "_" in a definition, Jason Gross, 09/01/2013
- Re: [Coq-Club] Using Program/Refine to allow "_" in a definition, t x, 09/01/2013
- Re: [Coq-Club] Using Program/Refine to allow "_" in a definition, Jason Gross, 09/01/2013
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.