Closed alleystoughton closed 2 months ago
Yes, there are two things here :
Do you have a scenario of such rules not of the form (x1, ..., xn).'k = xk
?
Do you have a scenario of such rules not of the form
(x1, ..., xn).'k = xk
?
No.
Do you have a scenario of such rules not of the form
(x1, ..., xn).'k = xk
?No.
Sorry, let me try again. Actually, the above is already handled by simplification, so it's very useful to add as a simplification hint. (The issue of the error message is separate.)
But what about:
op x : int * bool = (3, false).
lemma x_1 :
x.`1 = 3.
proof. trivial. qed.
lemma x_2 :
x.`2 = false.
proof. trivial. qed.
hint simplify [reduce] x_1, x_2.
lemma goo :
x.`1 = 3.
proof.
rewrite /=.
(*
Current goal
Type variables: <none>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
x.`1 = 3
*)
(this was under your P-R).
Fixed
Should the following use of
hint simplify [reduce]
really be illegal? If so, a proper error message would be good.