The Coq mailing list

[Gaëtan Gilbert <gaetan.gilbert AT skyskimmer.net>]

I see. Maybe something like "all: do 2 solve_eqs." would work, otherwise 
I think we just don't expose the right primitives.

Gaëtan Gilbert

On 25/01/2019 14:18, Jeremy Dawson wrote:
> Hi Gaëtan,
>
> all: repeat solve_eqs
> doesn't succeed, I don't know exactly what all : repeat solve_eqs does
> (previous emails addressed this question and the answer I was given)
> though in this case it's consistent with applying
> 1: repeat solve_eqs (which leaves one subgoal, so subgoal 2: is the
> original subgoal 2)
> then applying 2 : repeat solve_eqs.
> or maybe just
> 1: solve_eqs. then 2: solve_eqs. (ie without "repeat", I can't tell)
>
> It doesn't go back to try 1 : solve_eqs again.
>
> eg see the following, where the
> second application of the tactic
> all : repeat solve_eqs
> makes progress beyond the results of the first application of it.
>
> 2 focused subgoals
> (shelved: 5)
>
>     V : Set
>     Φ2, Ψ1, Ψ2, Γ1 : list (PropF V)
>     Q : PropF V
>     sel1, l, l1 : list (PropF V)
>     ============================
>     ((Γ1 ++ Q :: sel1) ++ l ++ Φ2, Ψ1 ++ l1 ++ Ψ2) =
>     (?Γ1 ++ ?Q :: ?Γ2 ++ ?Γ3, ?Δ)
>
> subgoal 2 is:
>    G ++ (?Γ1 ++ ?Γ2 ++ ?Q :: ?Γ3, ?Δ, d0) :: H6 =
>    G ++ ((Γ1 ++ sel1) ++ l ++ Q :: Φ2, Ψ1 ++ l1 ++ Ψ2, d0) :: H6
>
> gen_moveL < all : repeat solve_eqs.
> 1 subgoal
>
>     V : Set
>     Φ2, sel1, l : list (PropF V)
>     ============================
>     sel1 ++ l ++ Φ2 = (sel1 ++ l) ++ Φ2
>
> gen_moveL < all : repeat solve_eqs.
> This subproof is complete, but there are some unfocused goals.
> Try unfocusing with "}".
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeremy
>
>
> On 01/25/2019 08:53 PM, Gaëtan Gilbert wrote:
> > Note that repeat runs the inner tactic focused on each goal separately
> > so "repeat (all: solve_eqs)" would (if the syntax allowed it) be the
> > same as "repeat (only 1: solve_eqs)" which is also the same as "repeat
> > solve_eqs", and "repeat (only 2: solve_eqs)" is the same as "repeat
> > fail" ie idtac.
> >
> > I feel like "all: repeat solve_eqs" should work given what you describe,
> > can you explain how it fails?
> >
> > Gaëtan Gilbert
> >
> > On 25/01/2019 06:54, Jeremy Dawson wrote:
> > > Hi Cyprian,
> > >
> > > What I wanted is what I would express as
> > > repeat (all : solve_eqs)
> > > but it seems as though that form is forbidden.
> > >
> > > The various things I tried as indicated in my earlier email were simply
> > > looking for alternatives that work.
> > >
> > > Detailed background to what I want: solve_eqs doesn't seem to enlarge
> > > the number of goals in the cases where I want to use it, and sometimes
> > > solves a goal, sometimes only after solve_eqs has instantiated an evar
> > > in another goal, sometimes only after being repeatedly called on the
> > > same goal (where each time it simplifies the goal)
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Jeremy
> > >
> > >
> > > On 01/25/2019 10:00 AM, Cyprien Mangin wrote:
> > > > What you probably meant is something like "all : repeat solve_eqs"