--- a/doc-src/IsarRef/Thy/Generic.thy Sat Jun 11 14:27:23 2011 +0200
+++ b/doc-src/IsarRef/Thy/Generic.thy Sat Jun 11 15:03:31 2011 +0200
@@ -64,6 +64,8 @@
@{method_def erule}@{text "\<^sup>*"} & : & @{text method} \\
@{method_def drule}@{text "\<^sup>*"} & : & @{text method} \\
@{method_def frule}@{text "\<^sup>*"} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def intro} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def elim} & : & @{text method} \\
@{method_def succeed} & : & @{text method} \\
@{method_def fail} & : & @{text method} \\
\end{matharray}
@@ -73,6 +75,8 @@
;
(@@{method erule} | @@{method drule} | @@{method frule})
('(' @{syntax nat} ')')? @{syntax thmrefs}
+ ;
+ (@@{method intro} | @@{method elim}) @{syntax thmrefs}?
"}
\begin{description}
@@ -103,6 +107,12 @@
the plain @{method rule} method, with forward chaining of current
facts.
+ \item @{method intro} and @{method elim} repeatedly refine some goal
+ by intro- or elim-resolution, after having inserted any chained
+ facts. Exactly the rules given as arguments are taken into account;
+ this allows fine-tuned decomposition of a proof problem, in contrast
+ to common automated tools.
+
\item @{method succeed} yields a single (unchanged) result; it is
the identity of the ``@{text ","}'' method combinator (cf.\
\secref{sec:proof-meth}).
@@ -879,6 +889,39 @@
*}
+subsection {* Structured methods *}
+
+text {*
+ \begin{matharray}{rcl}
+ @{method_def rule} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def contradiction} & : & @{text method} \\
+ \end{matharray}
+
+ @{rail "
+ @@{method rule} @{syntax thmrefs}?
+ "}
+
+ \begin{description}
+
+ \item @{method rule} as offered by the Classical Reasoner is a
+ refinement over the Pure one (see \secref{sec:pure-meth-att}). Both
+ versions work the same, but the classical version observes the
+ classical rule context in addition to that of Isabelle/Pure.
+
+ Common object logics (HOL, ZF, etc.) declare a rich collection of
+ classical rules (even if these would qualify as intuitionistic
+ ones), but only few declarations to the rule context of
+ Isabelle/Pure (\secref{sec:pure-meth-att}).
+
+ \item @{method contradiction} solves some goal by contradiction,
+ deriving any result from both @{text "\<not> A"} and @{text A}. Chained
+ facts, which are guaranteed to participate, may appear in either
+ order.
+
+ \end{description}
+*}
+
+
subsection {* Automated methods *}
text {*
@@ -1041,47 +1084,6 @@
*}
-subsection {* Structured proof methods *}
-
-text {*
- \begin{matharray}{rcl}
- @{method_def rule} & : & @{text method} \\
- @{method_def contradiction} & : & @{text method} \\
- @{method_def intro} & : & @{text method} \\
- @{method_def elim} & : & @{text method} \\
- \end{matharray}
-
- @{rail "
- (@@{method rule} | @@{method intro} | @@{method elim}) @{syntax thmrefs}?
- "}
-
- \begin{description}
-
- \item @{method rule} as offered by the Classical Reasoner is a
- refinement over the Pure one (see \secref{sec:pure-meth-att}). Both
- versions work the same, but the classical version observes the
- classical rule context in addition to that of Isabelle/Pure.
-
- Common object logics (HOL, ZF, etc.) declare a rich collection of
- classical rules (even if these would qualify as intuitionistic
- ones), but only few declarations to the rule context of
- Isabelle/Pure (\secref{sec:pure-meth-att}).
-
- \item @{method contradiction} solves some goal by contradiction,
- deriving any result from both @{text "\<not> A"} and @{text A}. Chained
- facts, which are guaranteed to participate, may appear in either
- order.
-
- \item @{method intro} and @{method elim} repeatedly refine some goal
- by intro- or elim-resolution, after having inserted any chained
- facts. Exactly the rules given as arguments are taken into account;
- this allows fine-tuned decomposition of a proof problem, in contrast
- to common automated tools.
-
- \end{description}
-*}
-
-
section {* Object-logic setup \label{sec:object-logic} *}
text {*