Skip to content
GitLab
Menu
Projects
Groups
Snippets
Help
Help
Support
Community forum
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Submit feedback
Contribute to GitLab
Sign in / Register
Toggle navigation
Menu
Open sidebar
Glen Mével
Iris
Commits
f7956eda
Commit
f7956eda
authored
Jan 24, 2022
by
Janno
Committed by
Robbert Krebbers
Jan 24, 2022
Browse files
Stop `iAssumption` from unifying evar premises with `False`
parent
620e1ffc
Changes
4
Hide whitespace changes
Inline
Sidebyside
CHANGELOG.md
View file @
f7956eda
...
...
@@ 3,6 +3,15 @@ way the logic is used on paper. We also document changes in the Coq
development; every APIbreaking change should be listed, but not every new
lemma.
## Iris master
**Changes in `proofmode`:**
*
`iAssumption`
no longer instantiates evar premises with
`False`
. This used
to occur when the conclusion contains variables that are not in scope of the
evar, thus blocking the default behavior of instantiating the premise with
the conclusion. The old behavior can be emulated with
`iExFalso. iExact "H".`
## Iris 3.6.0 (20220122)
The highlights and most notable changes of this release are:
...
...
iris/proofmode/ltac_tactics.v
View file @
f7956eda
...
...
@@ 306,7 +306,8 @@ Tactic Notation "iAssumption" :=

exact
Hass

pm_reduce
;
iSolveTC

fail
2
"iAssumption: remaining hypotheses not affine and the goal not absorbing"
]

assert
(
P
=
False
%
I
)
as
Hass
by
reflexivity
;

assert_fails
(
is_evar
P
)
;
assert
(
P
=
False
%
I
)
as
Hass
by
reflexivity
;
apply
(
tac_false_destruct
_
j
p
P
)
;
[
pm_reflexivity

exact
Hass
]
...
...
tests/proofmode.ref
View file @
f7956eda
...
...
@@ 254,6 +254,10 @@ Tactic failure: iEval: %: unsupported selection pattern.
▷ emp
The command has indeed failed with message:
Tactic failure: iFrame: cannot frame Q.
The command has indeed failed with message:
No applicable tactic.
The command has indeed failed with message:
No applicable tactic.
"test_and_sep_affine_bi"
: string
1 goal
...
...
tests/proofmode.v
View file @
f7956eda
...
...
@@ 326,11 +326,6 @@ Definition tc_opaque_test : PROP := tc_opaque (∀ x : nat, ⌜ x = x ⌝)%I.
Lemma
test_iIntros_tc_opaque
:
⊢
tc_opaque_test
.
Proof
.
by
iIntros
(
x
).
Qed
.
(** Prior to 0b84351c this used to loop, now [iAssumption] instantiates [R] with
[False] and performs false elimination. *)
Lemma
test_iAssumption_evar_ex_false
:
∃
R
,
R
⊢
∀
P
,
P
.
Proof
.
eexists
.
iIntros
"?"
(
P
).
iAssumption
.
Qed
.
Lemma
test_iApply_evar
P
Q
R
:
(
∀
Q
,
Q

∗
P
)

∗
R

∗
P
.
Proof
.
iIntros
"H1 H2"
.
iApply
"H1"
.
iExact
"H2"
.
Qed
.
...
...
@@ 978,12 +973,23 @@ Lemma test_iAssumption_evar P : ∃ R, (R ⊢ P) ∧ R = P.
Proof
.
eexists
.
split
.

iIntros
"H"
.
iAssumption
.
(* Now verify that the evar was chosen as desired (i.e., it should not pick False). *)

reflexivity
.

(* Verify that [iAssumption] instantiates the evar for the existential [R]
to become [P], and in particular, that it does not make it [False]. *)
reflexivity
.
Qed
.
(** Prior to 0b84351c this used to loop, now [iAssumption] fails. *)
Lemma
test_iAssumption_False_no_loop
:
∃
R
,
R
⊢
∀
P
,
P
.
Proof
.
eexists
.
iIntros
"?"
(
P
).
done
.
Qed
.
Proof
.
eexists
.
iIntros
"H"
(
P
).
(* Make sure that [iAssumption] does not perform False elimination on
hypotheses that are evars. *)
Fail
iAssumption
.
(* And neither does [done]. *)
Fail
done
.
(* But we can of course achieve that using an explicit proof. *)
iExFalso
.
iExact
"H"
.
Qed
.
Lemma
test_apply_affine_impl
`
{!
BiPlainly
PROP
}
(
P
:
PROP
)
:
P

∗
(
∀
Q
:
PROP
,
■
(
Q

∗
<
pers
>
Q
)
→
■
(
P

∗
Q
)
→
Q
).
...
...
Write
Preview
Supports
Markdown
0%
Try again
or
attach a new file
.
Attach a file
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment