coq-club AT inria.fr
Subject: The Coq mailing list
List archive
[Coq-Club] Why do section variables behave differently in a definition than its arguments with respect to tactics?
Chronological Thread
- From: Jonathan <jonikelee AT gmail.com>
- To: Coq Club <coq-club AT inria.fr>
- Subject: [Coq-Club] Why do section variables behave differently in a definition than its arguments with respect to tactics?
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:56:42 -0400
There are times when certain case analysis tactics can be used to replace the hypothesis they are used on. For instance, something like "induction H as [H ...]." This is convenient. However, I just noticed that it matters as to whether H is a local hypothesis in the definition, or if it is a section variable. As a section variable, this replacing via intro pattern does not work - but it does still work to do this the long way as "induction H as [H' ...]. clear H. rename H' into H."
Is this a bug or a feature? I only noticed it because it broke one of my tactics - but I can of course just use the clear/rename workaround. I am just curious why there might be any difference at all between the two case.
-- Jonathan
- [Coq-Club] Why do section variables behave differently in a definition than its arguments with respect to tactics?, Jonathan, 06/24/2014
- Re: [Coq-Club] Why do section variables behave differently in a definition than its arguments with respect to tactics?, Guillaume Melquiond, 06/25/2014
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.