Tactical.VALIDATE

`VALIDATE_LT`

Tactical.VALIDATE_LT : list_tactic -> list_tactic

Makes a list-tactic valid if its invalidity is due to relying on assumptions not present in one of the goals.

When list-tactic ltac is applied to a goal list gl it produces a new goal list gl' and a justification. When the justification is applied to a list thl' of theorems which are the new goals gl', proved, it should produce a list thl of theorems which are the goals gl, proved.

A list-tactic can be invalid due to proving a theorem whose conclusion differs from that of the corresponding goal, or due to proving a theorem which contains extra assumptions relative to the corresponding goal. In this latter case, VALIDATE_LT ltac makes the list-tactic valid by returning extra subgoals to prove those extra assumptions.

See VALID_LT for more details.

Failure

Fails by design if ltac, when applied to a goal list, produces a proof which is invalid on account of proving a theorem whose conclusion differs from that of the corresponding goal.

Also fails if ltac fails when applied to the given goals.

Example

Where uthr' is [p', q] |- r and uths' is [p, q'] |- s

2 subgoals:
val it =

s
------------------------------------
  0.  p
  1.  q

r
------------------------------------
  0.  p
  1.  q

2 subgoals
:
   proof

> elt (ALLGOALS (FIRST (map ACCEPT_TAC [uthr', uths']))) ;
OK..

Exception raised at Tactical.VALID_LT:
Invalid list-tactic [...]

> elt (VALIDATE_LT (ALLGOALS (FIRST (map ACCEPT_TAC [uthr', uths'])))) ;
OK..
2 subgoals:
val it =

q'
------------------------------------
  0.  p
  1.  q

p'
------------------------------------
  0.  p
  1.  q

2 subgoals
:
   proof

Where a tactic ltac requires certain assumptions to be present in one of the goals, which are not present but are capable of being proved, VALIDATE_LT ltac will conveniently set up new subgoals to prove the missing assumptions.

VALIDATE_LT

Failure

Example

See also

`VALIDATE_LT`