Forked from
Iris / stdpp
2757 commits behind the upstream repository.
-
Robbert Krebbers authored
The refactoring includes: * Use infix notations for the various list relations * More consistent naming * Put lemmas on one line whenever possible * Change proofs into one-liners when possible * Make better use of the "Implicit Types" command * Improve the order of the list module by placing all definitions at the start, then the proofs, and finally the tactics. Besides, there is some new machinery for proofs by reflection on lists. It is used for a decision procedure for permutations and list containment.
Robbert Krebbers authoredThe refactoring includes: * Use infix notations for the various list relations * More consistent naming * Put lemmas on one line whenever possible * Change proofs into one-liners when possible * Make better use of the "Implicit Types" command * Improve the order of the list module by placing all definitions at the start, then the proofs, and finally the tactics. Besides, there is some new machinery for proofs by reflection on lists. It is used for a decision procedure for permutations and list containment.
option.v 11.42 KiB
(* Copyright (c) 2012-2013, Robbert Krebbers. *)
(* This file is distributed under the terms of the BSD license. *)
(** This file collects general purpose definitions and theorems on the option
data type that are not in the Coq standard library. *)
Require Export base tactics decidable.
(** * General definitions and theorems *)
(** Basic properties about equality. *)
Lemma None_ne_Some `(a : A) : None ≠ Some a.
Proof. congruence. Qed.
Lemma Some_ne_None `(a : A) : Some a ≠ None.
Proof. congruence. Qed.
Lemma eq_None_ne_Some `(x : option A) a : x = None → x ≠ Some a.
Proof. congruence. Qed.
Instance Some_inj {A} : Injective (=) (=) (@Some A).
Proof. congruence. Qed.
(** The non dependent elimination principle on the option type. *)
Definition default {A B} (b : B) (x : option A) (f : A → B) : B :=
match x with None => b | Some a => f a end.
(** The [from_option] function allows us to get the value out of the option
type by specifying a default value. *)
Definition from_option {A} (a : A) (x : option A) : A :=
match x with None => a | Some b => b end.
(** An alternative, but equivalent, definition of equality on the option
data type. This theorem is useful to prove that two options are the same. *)
Lemma option_eq {A} (x y : option A) :
x = y ↔ ∀ a, x = Some a ↔ y = Some a.
Proof.
split; [by intros; by subst |]. intros E. destruct x, y.
+ by apply E.
+ symmetry. by apply E.
+ by apply E.
+ done.
Qed.
Inductive is_Some {A} : option A → Prop :=
mk_is_Some x : is_Some (Some x).
Instance is_Some_pi {A} (x : option A) : ProofIrrel (is_Some x).
Proof.
intros [?] p2. by refine
match p2 in is_Some o return
match o with Some y => (mk_is_Some y =) | _ => λ _, False end p2
with mk_is_Some y => _ end.
Qed.
Lemma mk_is_Some_alt `(x : option A) a : x = Some a → is_Some x.
Proof. intros. by subst. Qed.
Hint Resolve mk_is_Some_alt.
Lemma is_Some_None {A} : ¬is_Some (@None A).
Proof. by inversion 1. Qed.
Hint Resolve is_Some_None.
Lemma is_Some_alt `(x : option A) : is_Some x ↔ ∃ y, x = Some y.
Proof. split. inversion 1; eauto. intros [??]. by subst. Qed.
Ltac inv_is_Some := repeat
match goal with H : is_Some _ |- _ => inversion H; clear H; subst end.
Definition is_Some_proj `{x : option A} : is_Some x → A :=
match x with
| Some a => λ _, a
| None => False_rect _ ∘ is_Some_None
end.
Definition Some_dec `(x : option A) : { a | x = Some a } + { x = None } :=
match x return { a | x = Some a } + { x = None } with
| Some a => inleft (a ↾ eq_refl _)
| None => inright eq_refl
end.
Instance is_Some_dec `(x : option A) : Decision (is_Some x) :=
match x with
| Some x => left (mk_is_Some x)
| None => right is_Some_None
end.
Instance None_dec `(x : option A) : Decision (x = None) :=
match x with
| Some x => right (Some_ne_None x)
| None => left eq_refl
end.
Lemma eq_None_not_Some `(x : option A) : x = None ↔ ¬is_Some x.
Proof. split. by destruct 2. destruct x. by intros []. done. Qed.
Lemma not_eq_None_Some `(x : option A) : x ≠ None ↔ is_Some x.
Proof. rewrite eq_None_not_Some. split. apply dec_stable. tauto. Qed.
Lemma mk_eq_Some {A} (x : option A) a :
is_Some x → (∀ b, x = Some b → b = a) → x = Some a.
Proof. destruct 1. intros. f_equal. auto. Qed.
(** Equality on [option] is decidable. *)
Instance option_eq_dec `{dec : ∀ x y : A, Decision (x = y)}
(x y : option A) : Decision (x = y) :=
match x, y with
| Some a, Some b =>
match dec a b with
| left H => left (f_equal _ H)
| right H => right (H ∘ injective Some _ _)
end
| Some _, None => right (Some_ne_None _)
| None, Some _ => right (None_ne_Some _)
| None, None => left eq_refl
end.
(** * Monadic operations *)
Instance option_ret: MRet option := @Some.
Instance option_bind: MBind option := λ A B f x,
match x with Some a => f a | None => None end.
Instance option_join: MJoin option := λ A x,
match x with Some x => x | None => None end.
Instance option_fmap: FMap option := @option_map.
Instance option_guard: MGuard option := λ P dec A x,
match dec with left H => x H | _ => None end.
Definition mapM `{!MBind M} `{!MRet M} {A B}
(f : A → M B) : list A → M (list B) :=
fix go l :=
match l with
| [] => mret []
| x :: l => y ← f x; k ← go l; mret (y :: k)
end.
Lemma fmap_is_Some {A B} (f : A → B) (x : option A) :
is_Some (f <$> x) ↔ is_Some x.
Proof. split; inversion 1. by destruct x. done. Qed.
Lemma fmap_Some {A B} (f : A → B) (x : option A) y :
f <$> x = Some y ↔ ∃ x', x = Some x' ∧ y = f x'.
Proof. unfold fmap, option_fmap. destruct x; naive_solver. Qed.
Lemma fmap_None {A B} (f : A → B) (x : option A) :
f <$> x = None ↔ x = None.
Proof. unfold fmap, option_fmap. by destruct x. Qed.
Lemma option_fmap_id {A} (x : option A) : id <$> x = x.
Proof. by destruct x. Qed.
Lemma option_bind_assoc {A B C} (f : A → option B)
(g : B → option C) (x : option A) : (x ≫= f) ≫= g = x ≫= (mbind g ∘ f).
Proof. by destruct x; simpl. Qed.
Lemma option_bind_ext {A B} (f g : A → option B) x y :
(∀ a, f a = g a) → x = y → x ≫= f = y ≫= g.
Proof. intros. destruct x, y; simplify_equality; simpl; auto. Qed.
Lemma option_bind_ext_fun {A B} (f g : A → option B) x :
(∀ a, f a = g a) → x ≫= f = x ≫= g.
Proof. intros. by apply option_bind_ext. Qed.
Section mapM.
Context {A B : Type} (f : A → option B).
Lemma mapM_ext (g : A → option B) l : (∀ x, f x = g x) → mapM f l = mapM g l.
Proof. intros Hfg. by induction l; simpl; rewrite ?Hfg, ?IHl. Qed.
Lemma Forall2_mapM_ext (g : A → option B) l k :
Forall2 (λ x y, f x = g y) l k → mapM f l = mapM g k.
Proof. induction 1 as [|???? Hfg ? IH]; simpl. done. by rewrite Hfg, IH. Qed.
Lemma Forall_mapM_ext (g : A → option B) l :
Forall (λ x, f x = g x) l → mapM f l = mapM g l.
Proof. induction 1 as [|?? Hfg ? IH]; simpl. done. by rewrite Hfg, IH. Qed.
Lemma mapM_Some_1 l k : mapM f l = Some k → Forall2 (λ x y, f x = Some y) l k.
Proof.
revert k. induction l as [|x l]; intros [|y k]; simpl; try done.
* destruct (f x); simpl; [|discriminate]. by destruct (mapM f l).
* destruct (f x) eqn:?; simpl; [|discriminate].
destruct (mapM f l); intros; simplify_equality. constructor; auto.
Qed.
Lemma mapM_Some_2 l k : Forall2 (λ x y, f x = Some y) l k → mapM f l = Some k.
Proof.
induction 1 as [|???? Hf ? IH]; simpl; [done |].
rewrite Hf. simpl. by rewrite IH.
Qed.
Lemma mapM_Some l k : mapM f l = Some k ↔ Forall2 (λ x y, f x = Some y) l k.
Proof. split; auto using mapM_Some_1, mapM_Some_2. Qed.
End mapM.
Tactic Notation "simplify_option_equality" "by" tactic3(tac) := repeat
match goal with
| _ => progress (unfold default in *)
| _ => first [progress simpl in * | progress simplify_equality]
| H : context [mbind (M:=option) (A:=?A) ?f ?o] |- _ =>
let Hx := fresh in
first
[ let x := fresh in evar (x:A);
let x' := eval unfold x in x in clear x;
assert (o = Some x') as Hx by tac
| assert (o = None) as Hx by tac ];
rewrite Hx in H; clear Hx
| H : context [fmap (M:=option) (A:=?A) ?f ?o] |- _ =>
let Hx := fresh in
first
[ let x := fresh in evar (x:A);
let x' := eval unfold x in x in clear x;
assert (o = Some x') as Hx by tac
| assert (o = None) as Hx by tac ];
rewrite Hx in H; clear Hx
| H : context [ match ?o with _ => _ end ] |- _ =>
match type of o with
| option ?A =>
let Hx := fresh in
first
[ let x := fresh in evar (x:A);
let x' := eval unfold x in x in clear x;
assert (o = Some x') as Hx by tac
| assert (o = None) as Hx by tac ];
rewrite Hx in H; clear Hx
end
| H : mbind (M:=option) ?f ?o = ?x |- _ =>
match o with Some _ => fail 1 | None => fail 1 | _ => idtac end;
match x with Some _ => idtac | None => idtac | _ => fail 1 end;
destruct o eqn:?
| H : ?x = mbind (M:=option) ?f ?o |- _ =>
match o with Some _ => fail 1 | None => fail 1 | _ => idtac end;
match x with Some _ => idtac | None => idtac | _ => fail 1 end;
destruct o eqn:?
| H : fmap (M:=option) ?f ?o = ?x |- _ =>
match o with Some _ => fail 1 | None => fail 1 | _ => idtac end;
match x with Some _ => idtac | None => idtac | _ => fail 1 end;
destruct o eqn:?
| H : ?x = fmap (M:=option) ?f ?o |- _ =>
match o with Some _ => fail 1 | None => fail 1 | _ => idtac end;
match x with Some _ => idtac | None => idtac | _ => fail 1 end;
destruct o eqn:?
| |- context [mbind (M:=option) (A:=?A) ?f ?o] =>
let Hx := fresh in
first
[ let x := fresh in evar (x:A);
let x' := eval unfold x in x in clear x;
assert (o = Some x') as Hx by tac
| assert (o = None) as Hx by tac ];
rewrite Hx; clear Hx
| |- context [fmap (M:=option) (A:=?A) ?f ?o] =>
let Hx := fresh in
first
[ let x := fresh in evar (x:A);
let x' := eval unfold x in x in clear x;
assert (o = Some x') as Hx by tac
| assert (o = None) as Hx by tac ];
rewrite Hx; clear Hx
| |- context [ match ?o with _ => _ end ] =>
match type of o with
| option ?A =>
let Hx := fresh in
first
[ let x := fresh in evar (x:A);
let x' := eval unfold x in x in clear x;
assert (o = Some x') as Hx by tac
| assert (o = None) as Hx by tac ];
rewrite Hx; clear Hx
end
| H : context C [@mguard option _ ?P ?dec _ ?x] |- _ =>
let X := context C [ match dec with left H => x H | _ => None end ] in
change X in H; destruct_decide dec
| |- context C [@mguard option _ ?P ?dec _ ?x] =>
let X := context C [ match dec with left H => x H | _ => None end ] in
change X; destruct_decide dec
| H1 : ?o = Some ?x, H2 : ?o = Some ?y |- _ =>
assert (y = x) by congruence; clear H2
| H1 : ?o = Some ?x, H2 : ?o = None |- _ =>
congruence
| H : mapM _ _ = Some _ |- _ => apply mapM_Some in H
end.
Tactic Notation "simplify_option_equality" :=
simplify_option_equality by eauto.
Hint Extern 800 =>
progress simplify_option_equality : simplify_option_equality.
(** * Union, intersection and difference *)
Instance option_union_with {A} : UnionWith A (option A) := λ f x y,
match x, y with
| Some a, Some b => f a b
| Some a, None => Some a
| None, Some b => Some b
| None, None => None
end.
Instance option_intersection_with {A} : IntersectionWith A (option A) :=
λ f x y, match x, y with Some a, Some b => f a b | _, _ => None end.
Instance option_difference_with {A} : DifferenceWith A (option A) := λ f x y,
match x, y with
| Some a, Some b => f a b
| Some a, None => Some a
| None, _ => None
end.
Section option_union_intersection_difference.
Context {A} (f : A → A → option A).
Global Instance: LeftId (=) None (union_with f).
Proof. by intros [?|]. Qed.
Global Instance: RightId (=) None (union_with f).
Proof. by intros [?|]. Qed.
Global Instance: Commutative (=) f → Commutative (=) (union_with f).
Proof. by intros ? [?|] [?|]; compute; rewrite 1?(commutative f). Qed.
Global Instance: LeftAbsorb (=) None (intersection_with f).
Proof. by intros [?|]. Qed.
Global Instance: RightAbsorb (=) None (intersection_with f).
Proof. by intros [?|]. Qed.
Global Instance: Commutative (=) f → Commutative (=) (intersection_with f).
Proof. by intros ? [?|] [?|]; compute; rewrite 1?(commutative f). Qed.
Global Instance: RightId (=) None (difference_with f).
Proof. by intros [?|]. Qed.
End option_union_intersection_difference.