%% $Id$

\chapter{Tactics} \label{tactics}

\index{tactics|(} Tactics have type \mltydx{tactic}.  This is just an

abbreviation for functions from theorems to theorem sequences, where

the theorems represent states of a backward proof.  Tactics seldom

need to be coded from scratch, as functions; instead they are

expressed using basic tactics and tacticals.

This chapter only presents the primitive tactics.  Substantial proofs

require the power of automatic tools like simplification

(Chapter~\ref{chap:simplification}) and classical tableau reasoning

(Chapter~\ref{chap:classical}).

\section{Resolution and assumption tactics}

{\bf Resolution} is Isabelle's basic mechanism for refining a subgoal using

a rule.  {\bf Elim-resolution} is particularly suited for elimination

rules, while {\bf destruct-resolution} is particularly suited for

destruction rules.  The {\tt r}, {\tt e}, {\tt d} naming convention is

maintained for several different kinds of resolution tactics, as well as

the shortcuts in the subgoal module.

All the tactics in this section act on a subgoal designated by a positive

integer~$i$.  They fail (by returning the empty sequence) if~$i$ is out of

range.

\subsection{Resolution tactics}

\index{resolution!tactics}

\index{tactics!resolution|bold}

\begin{ttbox} 

resolve_tac  : thm list -> int -> tactic

eresolve_tac : thm list -> int -> tactic

dresolve_tac : thm list -> int -> tactic

forward_tac  : thm list -> int -> tactic 

\end{ttbox}

These perform resolution on a list of theorems, $thms$, representing a list

of object-rules.  When generating next states, they take each of the rules

in the order given.  Each rule may yield several next states, or none:

higher-order resolution may yield multiple resolvents.

\begin{ttdescription}

\item[\ttindexbold{resolve_tac} {\it thms} {\it i}] 

  refines the proof state using the rules, which should normally be

  introduction rules.  It resolves a rule's conclusion with

  subgoal~$i$ of the proof state.

\item[\ttindexbold{eresolve_tac} {\it thms} {\it i}] 

  \index{elim-resolution}

  performs elim-resolution with the rules, which should normally be

  elimination rules.  It resolves with a rule, proves its first premise by

  assumption, and finally \emph{deletes} that assumption from any new

  subgoals.  (To rotate a rule's premises,

  see \texttt{rotate_prems} in~{\S}\ref{MiscellaneousForwardRules}.)

\item[\ttindexbold{dresolve_tac} {\it thms} {\it i}] 

  \index{forward proof}\index{destruct-resolution}

  performs destruct-resolution with the rules, which normally should

  be destruction rules.  This replaces an assumption by the result of

  applying one of the rules.

\item[\ttindexbold{forward_tac}]\index{forward proof}

  is like {\tt dresolve_tac} except that the selected assumption is not

  deleted.  It applies a rule to an assumption, adding the result as a new

  assumption.

\end{ttdescription}

\subsection{Assumption tactics}

\index{tactics!assumption|bold}\index{assumptions!tactics for}

\begin{ttbox} 

assume_tac    : int -> tactic

eq_assume_tac : int -> tactic

\end{ttbox} 

\begin{ttdescription}

\item[\ttindexbold{assume_tac} {\it i}] 

attempts to solve subgoal~$i$ by assumption.

\item[\ttindexbold{eq_assume_tac}] 

is like {\tt assume_tac} but does not use unification.  It succeeds (with a

\emph{unique} next state) if one of the assumptions is identical to the

subgoal's conclusion.  Since it does not instantiate variables, it cannot

make other subgoals unprovable.  It is intended to be called from proof

strategies, not interactively.

\end{ttdescription}

\subsection{Matching tactics} \label{match_tac}

\index{tactics!matching}

\begin{ttbox} 

match_tac  : thm list -> int -> tactic

ematch_tac : thm list -> int -> tactic

dmatch_tac : thm list -> int -> tactic

\end{ttbox}

These are just like the resolution tactics except that they never

instantiate unknowns in the proof state.  Flexible subgoals are not updated

willy-nilly, but are left alone.  Matching --- strictly speaking --- means

treating the unknowns in the proof state as constants; these tactics merely

discard unifiers that would update the proof state.

\begin{ttdescription}

\item[\ttindexbold{match_tac} {\it thms} {\it i}] 

refines the proof state using the rules, matching a rule's

conclusion with subgoal~$i$ of the proof state.

\item[\ttindexbold{ematch_tac}] 

is like {\tt match_tac}, but performs elim-resolution.

\item[\ttindexbold{dmatch_tac}] 

is like {\tt match_tac}, but performs destruct-resolution.

\end{ttdescription}

\subsection{Resolution with instantiation} \label{res_inst_tac}

\index{tactics!instantiation}\index{instantiation}

\begin{ttbox} 

res_inst_tac  : (string*string)list -> thm -> int -> tactic

eres_inst_tac : (string*string)list -> thm -> int -> tactic

dres_inst_tac : (string*string)list -> thm -> int -> tactic

forw_inst_tac : (string*string)list -> thm -> int -> tactic

\end{ttbox}

These tactics are designed for applying rules such as substitution and

induction, which cause difficulties for higher-order unification.  The

tactics accept explicit instantiations for unknowns in the rule ---

typically, in the rule's conclusion.  Each instantiation is a pair

{\tt($v$,$e$)}, where $v$ is an unknown \emph{without} its leading

question mark!

\begin{itemize}

\item If $v$ is the type unknown {\tt'a}, then

the rule must contain a type unknown \verb$?'a$ of some

sort~$s$, and $e$ should be a type of sort $s$.

\item If $v$ is the unknown {\tt P}, then

the rule must contain an unknown \verb$?P$ of some type~$\tau$,

and $e$ should be a term of some type~$\sigma$ such that $\tau$ and

$\sigma$ are unifiable.  If the unification of $\tau$ and $\sigma$

instantiates any type unknowns in $\tau$, these instantiations

are recorded for application to the rule.

\end{itemize}

Types are instantiated before terms are.  Because type instantiations are

inferred from term instantiations, explicit type instantiations are seldom

necessary --- if \verb$?t$ has type \verb$?'a$, then the instantiation list

\texttt{[("'a","bool"), ("t","True")]} may be simplified to

\texttt{[("t","True")]}.  Type unknowns in the proof state may cause

failure because the tactics cannot instantiate them.

The instantiation tactics act on a given subgoal.  Terms in the

instantiations are type-checked in the context of that subgoal --- in

particular, they may refer to that subgoal's parameters.  Any unknowns in

the terms receive subscripts and are lifted over the parameters; thus, you

may not refer to unknowns in the subgoal.

\begin{ttdescription}

\item[\ttindexbold{res_inst_tac} {\it insts} {\it thm} {\it i}]

instantiates the rule {\it thm} with the instantiations {\it insts}, as

described above, and then performs resolution on subgoal~$i$.  Resolution

typically causes further instantiations; you need not give explicit

instantiations for every unknown in the rule.

\item[\ttindexbold{eres_inst_tac}] 

is like {\tt res_inst_tac}, but performs elim-resolution.

\item[\ttindexbold{dres_inst_tac}] 

is like {\tt res_inst_tac}, but performs destruct-resolution.

\item[\ttindexbold{forw_inst_tac}] 

is like {\tt dres_inst_tac} except that the selected assumption is not

deleted.  It applies the instantiated rule to an assumption, adding the

result as a new assumption.

\end{ttdescription}

\section{Other basic tactics}

\subsection{Tactic shortcuts}

\index{shortcuts!for tactics}

\index{tactics!resolution}\index{tactics!assumption}

\index{tactics!meta-rewriting}

\begin{ttbox} 

rtac     :      thm ->        int -> tactic

etac     :      thm ->        int -> tactic

dtac     :      thm ->        int -> tactic

ftac     :      thm ->        int -> tactic

atac     :                    int -> tactic

eatac    :      thm -> int -> int -> tactic

datac    :      thm -> int -> int -> tactic

fatac    :      thm -> int -> int -> tactic

ares_tac :      thm list   -> int -> tactic

rewtac   :      thm ->               tactic

\end{ttbox}

These abbreviate common uses of tactics.

\begin{ttdescription}

\item[\ttindexbold{rtac} {\it thm} {\it i}] 

abbreviates \hbox{\tt resolve_tac [{\it thm}] {\it i}}, doing resolution.

\item[\ttindexbold{etac} {\it thm} {\it i}] 

abbreviates \hbox{\tt eresolve_tac [{\it thm}] {\it i}}, doing elim-resolution.

\item[\ttindexbold{dtac} {\it thm} {\it i}] 

abbreviates \hbox{\tt dresolve_tac [{\it thm}] {\it i}}, doing

destruct-resolution.

\item[\ttindexbold{ftac} {\it thm} {\it i}] 

abbreviates \hbox{\tt forward_tac [{\it thm}] {\it i}}, doing

destruct-resolution without deleting the assumption.

\item[\ttindexbold{atac} {\it i}] 

abbreviates \hbox{\tt assume_tac {\it i}}, doing proof by assumption.

\item[\ttindexbold{eatac} {\it thm} {\it j} {\it i}] 

performs \hbox{\tt etac {\it thm}} and then {\it j} times \texttt{atac}, 

solving additionally {\it j}~premises of the rule {\it thm} by assumption.

\item[\ttindexbold{datac} {\it thm} {\it j} {\it i}] 

performs \hbox{\tt dtac {\it thm}} and then {\it j} times \texttt{atac}, 

solving additionally {\it j}~premises of the rule {\it thm} by assumption.

\item[\ttindexbold{fatac} {\it thm} {\it j} {\it i}] 

performs \hbox{\tt ftac {\it thm}} and then {\it j} times \texttt{atac}, 

solving additionally {\it j}~premises of the rule {\it thm} by assumption.

\item[\ttindexbold{ares_tac} {\it thms} {\it i}] 

tries proof by assumption and resolution; it abbreviates

\begin{ttbox}

assume_tac {\it i} ORELSE resolve_tac {\it thms} {\it i}

\end{ttbox}

\item[\ttindexbold{rewtac} {\it def}] 

abbreviates \hbox{\tt rewrite_goals_tac [{\it def}]}, unfolding a definition.

\end{ttdescription}

\subsection{Inserting premises and facts}\label{cut_facts_tac}

\index{tactics!for inserting facts}\index{assumptions!inserting}

\begin{ttbox} 

cut_facts_tac : thm list -> int -> tactic

cut_inst_tac  : (string*string)list -> thm -> int -> tactic

subgoal_tac   : string -> int -> tactic

subgoals_tac  : string list -> int -> tactic

\end{ttbox}

These tactics add assumptions to a subgoal.

\begin{ttdescription}

\item[\ttindexbold{cut_facts_tac} {\it thms} {\it i}] 

  adds the {\it thms} as new assumptions to subgoal~$i$.  Once they have

  been inserted as assumptions, they become subject to tactics such as {\tt

    eresolve_tac} and {\tt rewrite_goals_tac}.  Only rules with no premises

  are inserted: Isabelle cannot use assumptions that contain $\Imp$

  or~$\Forall$.  Sometimes the theorems are premises of a rule being

  derived, returned by~{\tt goal}; instead of calling this tactic, you

  could state the goal with an outermost meta-quantifier.

\item[\ttindexbold{cut_inst_tac} {\it insts} {\it thm} {\it i}]

  instantiates the {\it thm} with the instantiations {\it insts}, as

  described in {\S}\ref{res_inst_tac}.  It adds the resulting theorem as a

  new assumption to subgoal~$i$. 

\item[\ttindexbold{subgoal_tac} {\it formula} {\it i}] 

adds the {\it formula} as an assumption to subgoal~$i$, and inserts the same

{\it formula} as a new subgoal, $i+1$.

\item[\ttindexbold{subgoals_tac} {\it formulae} {\it i}] 

  uses {\tt subgoal_tac} to add the members of the list of {\it

    formulae} as assumptions to subgoal~$i$. 

\end{ttdescription}

\subsection{``Putting off'' a subgoal}

\begin{ttbox} 

defer_tac : int -> tactic

\end{ttbox}

\begin{ttdescription}

\item[\ttindexbold{defer_tac} {\it i}] 

  moves subgoal~$i$ to the last position in the proof state.  It can be

  useful when correcting a proof script: if the tactic given for subgoal~$i$

  fails, calling {\tt defer_tac} instead will let you continue with the rest

  of the script.

  The tactic fails if subgoal~$i$ does not exist or if the proof state

  contains type unknowns. 

\end{ttdescription}

\subsection{Definitions and meta-level rewriting} \label{sec:rewrite_goals}

\index{tactics!meta-rewriting|bold}\index{meta-rewriting|bold}

\index{definitions}

Definitions in Isabelle have the form $t\equiv u$, where $t$ is typically a

constant or a constant applied to a list of variables, for example $\it

sqr(n)\equiv n\times n$.  Conditional definitions, $\phi\Imp t\equiv u$,

are also supported.  {\bf Unfolding} the definition ${t\equiv u}$ means using

it as a rewrite rule, replacing~$t$ by~$u$ throughout a theorem.  {\bf

Folding} $t\equiv u$ means replacing~$u$ by~$t$.  Rewriting continues until

no rewrites are applicable to any subterm.

There are rules for unfolding and folding definitions; Isabelle does not do

this automatically.  The corresponding tactics rewrite the proof state,

yielding a single next state.  See also the {\tt goalw} command, which is the

easiest way of handling definitions.

\begin{ttbox} 

rewrite_goals_tac : thm list -> tactic

rewrite_tac       : thm list -> tactic

fold_goals_tac    : thm list -> tactic

fold_tac          : thm list -> tactic

\end{ttbox}

\begin{ttdescription}

\item[\ttindexbold{rewrite_goals_tac} {\it defs}]  

unfolds the {\it defs} throughout the subgoals of the proof state, while

leaving the main goal unchanged.  Use \ttindex{SELECT_GOAL} to restrict it to a

particular subgoal.

\item[\ttindexbold{rewrite_tac} {\it defs}]  

unfolds the {\it defs} throughout the proof state, including the main goal

--- not normally desirable!

\item[\ttindexbold{fold_goals_tac} {\it defs}]  

folds the {\it defs} throughout the subgoals of the proof state, while

leaving the main goal unchanged.

\item[\ttindexbold{fold_tac} {\it defs}]  

folds the {\it defs} throughout the proof state.

\end{ttdescription}

\begin{warn}

  These tactics only cope with definitions expressed as meta-level

  equalities ($\equiv$).  More general equivalences are handled by the

  simplifier, provided that it is set up appropriately for your logic

  (see Chapter~\ref{chap:simplification}).

\end{warn}

\subsection{Theorems useful with tactics}

\index{theorems!of pure theory}

\begin{ttbox} 

asm_rl: thm 

cut_rl: thm 

\end{ttbox}

\begin{ttdescription}

\item[\tdx{asm_rl}] 

is $\psi\Imp\psi$.  Under elim-resolution it does proof by assumption, and

\hbox{\tt eresolve_tac (asm_rl::{\it thms}) {\it i}} is equivalent to

\begin{ttbox} 

assume_tac {\it i}  ORELSE  eresolve_tac {\it thms} {\it i}

\end{ttbox}

\item[\tdx{cut_rl}] 

is $\List{\psi\Imp\theta,\psi}\Imp\theta$.  It is useful for inserting

assumptions; it underlies {\tt forward_tac}, {\tt cut_facts_tac}

and {\tt subgoal_tac}.

\end{ttdescription}

\section{Obscure tactics}

\subsection{Renaming parameters in a goal} \index{parameters!renaming}

\begin{ttbox} 

rename_tac        : string -> int -> tactic

rename_last_tac   : string -> string list -> int -> tactic

Logic.set_rename_prefix : string -> unit

Logic.auto_rename       : bool ref      \hfill{\bf initially false}

\end{ttbox}

When creating a parameter, Isabelle chooses its name by matching variable

names via the object-rule.  Given the rule $(\forall I)$ formalized as

$\left(\Forall x. P(x)\right) \Imp \forall x.P(x)$, Isabelle will note that

the $\Forall$-bound variable in the premise has the same name as the

$\forall$-bound variable in the conclusion.  

Sometimes there is insufficient information and Isabelle chooses an

arbitrary name.  The renaming tactics let you override Isabelle's choice.

Because renaming parameters has no logical effect on the proof state, the

{\tt by} command prints the message {\tt Warning:\ same as previous

level}.

Alternatively, you can suppress the naming mechanism described above and

have Isabelle generate uniform names for parameters.  These names have the

form $p${\tt a}, $p${\tt b}, $p${\tt c},~\ldots, where $p$ is any desired

prefix.  They are ugly but predictable.

\begin{ttdescription}

\item[\ttindexbold{rename_tac} {\it str} {\it i}] 

interprets the string {\it str} as a series of blank-separated variable

names, and uses them to rename the parameters of subgoal~$i$.  The names

must be distinct.  If there are fewer names than parameters, then the

tactic renames the innermost parameters and may modify the remaining ones

to ensure that all the parameters are distinct.

\item[\ttindexbold{rename_last_tac} {\it prefix} {\it suffixes} {\it i}] 

generates a list of names by attaching each of the {\it suffixes\/} to the 

{\it prefix}.  It is intended for coding structural induction tactics,

where several of the new parameters should have related names.

\item[\ttindexbold{Logic.set_rename_prefix} {\it prefix};] 

sets the prefix for uniform renaming to~{\it prefix}.  The default prefix

is {\tt"k"}.

\item[set \ttindexbold{Logic.auto_rename};] 

makes Isabelle generate uniform names for parameters. 

\end{ttdescription}

\subsection{Manipulating assumptions}

\index{assumptions!rotating}

\begin{ttbox} 

thin_tac   : string -> int -> tactic

rotate_tac : int -> int -> tactic

\end{ttbox}

\begin{ttdescription}

\item[\ttindexbold{thin_tac} {\it formula} $i$]  

\index{assumptions!deleting}

deletes the specified assumption from subgoal $i$.  Often the assumption

can be abbreviated, replacing subformul{\ae} by unknowns; the first matching

assumption will be deleted.  Removing useless assumptions from a subgoal

increases its readability and can make search tactics run faster.

\item[\ttindexbold{rotate_tac} $n$ $i$]  

\index{assumptions!rotating}

rotates the assumptions of subgoal $i$ by $n$ positions: from right to left

if $n$ is positive, and from left to right if $n$ is negative.  This is 

sometimes necessary in connection with \ttindex{asm_full_simp_tac}, which 

processes assumptions from left to right.

\end{ttdescription}

\subsection{Tidying the proof state}

\index{duplicate subgoals!removing}

\index{parameters!removing unused}

\index{flex-flex constraints}

\begin{ttbox} 

distinct_subgoals_tac : tactic

prune_params_tac      : tactic

flexflex_tac          : tactic

\end{ttbox}

\begin{ttdescription}

\item[\ttindexbold{distinct_subgoals_tac}] removes duplicate subgoals from a

  proof state.  (These arise especially in ZF, where the subgoals are

  essentially type constraints.)

\item[\ttindexbold{prune_params_tac}]  

  removes unused parameters from all subgoals of the proof state.  It works

  by rewriting with the theorem $(\Forall x. V)\equiv V$.  This tactic can

  make the proof state more readable.  It is used with

  \ttindex{rule_by_tactic} to simplify the resulting theorem.

\item[\ttindexbold{flexflex_tac}]  

  removes all flex-flex pairs from the proof state by applying the trivial

  unifier.  This drastic step loses information, and should only be done as

  the last step of a proof.

  Flex-flex constraints arise from difficult cases of higher-order

  unification.  To prevent this, use \ttindex{res_inst_tac} to instantiate

  some variables in a rule~({\S}\ref{res_inst_tac}).  Normally flex-flex

  constraints can be ignored; they often disappear as unknowns get

  instantiated.

\end{ttdescription}

\subsection{Composition: resolution without lifting}

\index{tactics!for composition}

\begin{ttbox}

compose_tac: (bool * thm * int) -> int -> tactic

\end{ttbox}

{\bf Composing} two rules means resolving them without prior lifting or

renaming of unknowns.  This low-level operation, which underlies the

resolution tactics, may occasionally be useful for special effects.

A typical application is \ttindex{res_inst_tac}, which lifts and instantiates a

rule, then passes the result to {\tt compose_tac}.

\begin{ttdescription}

\item[\ttindexbold{compose_tac} ($flag$, $rule$, $m$) $i$] 

refines subgoal~$i$ using $rule$, without lifting.  The $rule$ is taken to

have the form $\List{\psi@1; \ldots; \psi@m} \Imp \psi$, where $\psi$ need

not be atomic; thus $m$ determines the number of new subgoals.  If

$flag$ is {\tt true} then it performs elim-resolution --- it solves the

first premise of~$rule$ by assumption and deletes that assumption.

\end{ttdescription}

\section{*Managing lots of rules}

These operations are not intended for interactive use.  They are concerned

with the processing of large numbers of rules in automatic proof

strategies.  Higher-order resolution involving a long list of rules is

slow.  Filtering techniques can shorten the list of rules given to

resolution, and can also detect whether a subgoal is too flexible,

with too many rules applicable.

\subsection{Combined resolution and elim-resolution} \label{biresolve_tac}

\index{tactics!resolution}

\begin{ttbox} 

biresolve_tac   : (bool*thm)list -> int -> tactic

bimatch_tac     : (bool*thm)list -> int -> tactic

subgoals_of_brl : bool*thm -> int

lessb           : (bool*thm) * (bool*thm) -> bool

\end{ttbox}

{\bf Bi-resolution} takes a list of $\it (flag,rule)$ pairs.  For each

pair, it applies resolution if the flag is~{\tt false} and

elim-resolution if the flag is~{\tt true}.  A single tactic call handles a

mixture of introduction and elimination rules.

\begin{ttdescription}

\item[\ttindexbold{biresolve_tac} {\it brls} {\it i}] 

refines the proof state by resolution or elim-resolution on each rule, as

indicated by its flag.  It affects subgoal~$i$ of the proof state.

\item[\ttindexbold{bimatch_tac}] 

is like {\tt biresolve_tac}, but performs matching: unknowns in the

proof state are never updated (see~{\S}\ref{match_tac}).

\item[\ttindexbold{subgoals_of_brl}({\it flag},{\it rule})] 

returns the number of new subgoals that bi-res\-o\-lu\-tion would yield for the

pair (if applied to a suitable subgoal).  This is $n$ if the flag is

{\tt false} and $n-1$ if the flag is {\tt true}, where $n$ is the number

of premises of the rule.  Elim-resolution yields one fewer subgoal than

ordinary resolution because it solves the major premise by assumption.

\item[\ttindexbold{lessb} ({\it brl1},{\it brl2})] 

returns the result of 

\begin{ttbox}

subgoals_of_brl{\it brl1} < subgoals_of_brl{\it brl2}

\end{ttbox}

\end{ttdescription}

Note that \hbox{\tt sort lessb {\it brls}} sorts a list of $\it

(flag,rule)$ pairs by the number of new subgoals they will yield.  Thus,

those that yield the fewest subgoals should be tried first.

\subsection{Discrimination nets for fast resolution}\label{filt_resolve_tac}

\index{discrimination nets|bold}

\index{tactics!resolution}

\begin{ttbox} 

net_resolve_tac  : thm list -> int -> tactic

net_match_tac    : thm list -> int -> tactic

net_biresolve_tac: (bool*thm) list -> int -> tactic

net_bimatch_tac  : (bool*thm) list -> int -> tactic

filt_resolve_tac : thm list -> int -> int -> tactic

could_unify      : term*term->bool

filter_thms      : (term*term->bool) -> int*term*thm list -> thm{\ts}list

\end{ttbox}

The module {\tt Net} implements a discrimination net data structure for

fast selection of rules \cite[Chapter 14]{charniak80}.  A term is

classified by the symbol list obtained by flattening it in preorder.

The flattening takes account of function applications, constants, and free

and bound variables; it identifies all unknowns and also regards

\index{lambda abs@$\lambda$-abstractions}

$\lambda$-abstractions as unknowns, since they could $\eta$-contract to

anything.  

A discrimination net serves as a polymorphic dictionary indexed by terms.

The module provides various functions for inserting and removing items from

nets.  It provides functions for returning all items whose term could match

or unify with a target term.  The matching and unification tests are

overly lax (due to the identifications mentioned above) but they serve as

useful filters.

A net can store introduction rules indexed by their conclusion, and

elimination rules indexed by their major premise.  Isabelle provides

several functions for `compiling' long lists of rules into fast

resolution tactics.  When supplied with a list of theorems, these functions

build a discrimination net; the net is used when the tactic is applied to a

goal.  To avoid repeatedly constructing the nets, use currying: bind the

resulting tactics to \ML{} identifiers.

\begin{ttdescription}

\item[\ttindexbold{net_resolve_tac} {\it thms}] 

builds a discrimination net to obtain the effect of a similar call to {\tt

resolve_tac}.

\item[\ttindexbold{net_match_tac} {\it thms}] 

builds a discrimination net to obtain the effect of a similar call to {\tt

match_tac}.

\item[\ttindexbold{net_biresolve_tac} {\it brls}] 

builds a discrimination net to obtain the effect of a similar call to {\tt

biresolve_tac}.

\item[\ttindexbold{net_bimatch_tac} {\it brls}] 

builds a discrimination net to obtain the effect of a similar call to {\tt

bimatch_tac}.

\item[\ttindexbold{filt_resolve_tac} {\it thms} {\it maxr} {\it i}] 

uses discrimination nets to extract the {\it thms} that are applicable to

subgoal~$i$.  If more than {\it maxr\/} theorems are applicable then the

tactic fails.  Otherwise it calls {\tt resolve_tac}.  

This tactic helps avoid runaway instantiation of unknowns, for example in

type inference.

\item[\ttindexbold{could_unify} ({\it t},{\it u})] 

returns {\tt false} if~$t$ and~$u$ are `obviously' non-unifiable, and

otherwise returns~{\tt true}.  It assumes all variables are distinct,

reporting that {\tt ?a=?a} may unify with {\tt 0=1}.

\item[\ttindexbold{filter_thms} $could\; (limit,prem,thms)$] 

returns the list of potentially resolvable rules (in {\it thms\/}) for the

subgoal {\it prem}, using the predicate {\it could\/} to compare the

conclusion of the subgoal with the conclusion of each rule.  The resulting list

is no longer than {\it limit}.

\end{ttdescription}

\section{Programming tools for proof strategies}

Do not consider using the primitives discussed in this section unless you

really need to code tactics from scratch.

\subsection{Operations on tactics}

\index{tactics!primitives for coding} A tactic maps theorems to sequences of

theorems.  The type constructor for sequences (lazy lists) is called

\mltydx{Seq.seq}.  To simplify the types of tactics and tacticals,

Isabelle defines a type abbreviation:

\begin{ttbox} 

type tactic = thm -> thm Seq.seq

\end{ttbox} 

The following operations provide means for coding tactics in a clean style.

\begin{ttbox} 

PRIMITIVE :                  (thm -> thm) -> tactic  

SUBGOAL   : ((term*int) -> tactic) -> int -> tactic

\end{ttbox} 

\begin{ttdescription}

\item[\ttindexbold{PRIMITIVE} $f$] packages the meta-rule~$f$ as a tactic that

  applies $f$ to the proof state and returns the result as a one-element

  sequence.  If $f$ raises an exception, then the tactic's result is the empty

  sequence.

\item[\ttindexbold{SUBGOAL} $f$ $i$] 

extracts subgoal~$i$ from the proof state as a term~$t$, and computes a

tactic by calling~$f(t,i)$.  It applies the resulting tactic to the same

state.  The tactic body is expressed using tactics and tacticals, but may

peek at a particular subgoal:

\begin{ttbox} 

SUBGOAL (fn (t,i) => {\it tactic-valued expression})

\end{ttbox} 

\end{ttdescription}

\subsection{Tracing}

\index{tactics!tracing}

\index{tracing!of tactics}

\begin{ttbox} 

pause_tac: tactic

print_tac: tactic

\end{ttbox}

These tactics print tracing information when they are applied to a proof

state.  Their output may be difficult to interpret.  Note that certain of

the searching tacticals, such as {\tt REPEAT}, have built-in tracing

options.

\begin{ttdescription}

\item[\ttindexbold{pause_tac}] 

prints {\footnotesize\tt** Press RETURN to continue:} and then reads a line

from the terminal.  If this line is blank then it returns the proof state

unchanged; otherwise it fails (which may terminate a repetition).

\item[\ttindexbold{print_tac}] 

returns the proof state unchanged, with the side effect of printing it at

the terminal.

\end{ttdescription}

\section{*Sequences}

\index{sequences (lazy lists)|bold}

The module {\tt Seq} declares a type of lazy lists.  It uses

Isabelle's type \mltydx{option} to represent the possible presence

(\ttindexbold{Some}) or absence (\ttindexbold{None}) of

a value:

\begin{ttbox}

datatype 'a option = None  |  Some of 'a;

\end{ttbox}

The {\tt Seq} structure is supposed to be accessed via fully qualified

names and should not be \texttt{open}.

\subsection{Basic operations on sequences}

\begin{ttbox} 

Seq.empty   : 'a seq

Seq.make    : (unit -> ('a * 'a seq) option) -> 'a seq

Seq.single  : 'a -> 'a seq

Seq.pull    : 'a seq -> ('a * 'a seq) option

\end{ttbox}

\begin{ttdescription}

\item[Seq.empty] is the empty sequence.

\item[\tt Seq.make (fn () => Some ($x$, $xq$))] constructs the

  sequence with head~$x$ and tail~$xq$, neither of which is evaluated.

\item[Seq.single $x$] 

constructs the sequence containing the single element~$x$.

\item[Seq.pull $xq$] returns {\tt None} if the sequence is empty and

  {\tt Some ($x$, $xq'$)} if the sequence has head~$x$ and tail~$xq'$.

  Warning: calling \hbox{Seq.pull $xq$} again will {\it recompute\/}

  the value of~$x$; it is not stored!

\end{ttdescription}

\subsection{Converting between sequences and lists}

\begin{ttbox} 

Seq.chop    : int * 'a seq -> 'a list * 'a seq

Seq.list_of : 'a seq -> 'a list

Seq.of_list : 'a list -> 'a seq

\end{ttbox}

\begin{ttdescription}

\item[Seq.chop ($n$, $xq$)] returns the first~$n$ elements of~$xq$ as a

  list, paired with the remaining elements of~$xq$.  If $xq$ has fewer

  than~$n$ elements, then so will the list.

\item[Seq.list_of $xq$] returns the elements of~$xq$, which must be

  finite, as a list.

\item[Seq.of_list $xs$] creates a sequence containing the elements

  of~$xs$.

\end{ttdescription}

\subsection{Combining sequences}

\begin{ttbox} 

Seq.append      : 'a seq * 'a seq -> 'a seq

Seq.interleave  : 'a seq * 'a seq -> 'a seq

Seq.flat        : 'a seq seq -> 'a seq

Seq.map         : ('a -> 'b) -> 'a seq -> 'b seq

Seq.filter      : ('a -> bool) -> 'a seq -> 'a seq

\end{ttbox} 

\begin{ttdescription}

\item[Seq.append ($xq$, $yq$)] concatenates $xq$ to $yq$.

\item[Seq.interleave ($xq$, $yq$)] joins $xq$ with $yq$ by

  interleaving their elements.  The result contains all the elements

  of the sequences, even if both are infinite.

\item[Seq.flat $xqq$] concatenates a sequence of sequences.

\item[Seq.map $f$ $xq$] applies $f$ to every element

  of~$xq=x@1,x@2,\ldots$, yielding the sequence $f(x@1),f(x@2),\ldots$.

\item[Seq.filter $p$ $xq$] returns the sequence consisting of all

  elements~$x$ of~$xq$ such that $p(x)$ is {\tt true}.

\end{ttdescription}

\index{tactics|)}

%%% Local Variables: 

%%% mode: latex

%%% TeX-master: "ref"

%%% End: