The Coq mailing list

[Jeremy Dawson <Jeremy.Dawson AT anu.edu.au>]

This does work! Though I can't see how.  What does it actually do? (ie 
to which goals, in which order, and how many times (etc) does it apply 
solve_eqs.

Thanks,

Jeremy


On 01/26/2019 12:39 AM, Gaëtan Gilbert wrote:
> 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"