diff -r 22fa8b16c3ae -r 13b32661dde4 doc-src/TutorialI/Misc/def_rewr.thy
--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/doc-src/TutorialI/Misc/def_rewr.thy	Wed Apr 19 11:56:31 2000 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+(*<*)
+theory def_rewr = Main:;
+
+(*>*)text{*\noindent Constant definitions (\S\ref{sec:ConstDefinitions}) can
+be used as simplification rules, but by default they are not.  Hence the
+simplifier does not expand them automatically, just as it should be:
+definitions are introduced for the purpose of abbreviating complex
+concepts. Of course we need to expand the definitions initially to derive
+enough lemmas that characterize the concept sufficiently for us to forget the
+original definition. For example, given
+*}
+
+constdefs exor :: "bool \\<Rightarrow> bool \\<Rightarrow> bool"
+         "exor A B \\<equiv> (A \\<and> \\<not>B) \\<or> (\\<not>A \\<and> B)";
+
+text{*\noindent
+we may want to prove
+*}
+
+lemma "exor A (\\<not>A)";
+
+txt{*\noindent
+There is a special method for \emph{unfolding} definitions, which we need to
+get started:\indexbold{*unfold}\indexbold{definition!unfolding}
+*}
+
+apply(unfold exor_def);
+
+txt{*\noindent
+It unfolds the given list of definitions (here merely one) in all subgoals:
+\begin{isabellepar}%
+~1.~A~{\isasymand}~{\isasymnot}~{\isasymnot}~A~{\isasymor}~{\isasymnot}~A~{\isasymand}~{\isasymnot}~A%
+\end{isabellepar}%
+The resulting goal can be proved by simplification.
+
+In case we want to expand a definition in the middle of a proof, we can
+simply include it locally:*}(*<*)oops;lemma "exor A (\\<not>A)";(*>*)
+apply(simp add: exor_def);(*<*).(*>*)
+
+text{*\noindent
+In fact, this one command proves the above lemma directly.
+
+You should normally not turn a definition permanently into a simplification
+rule because this defeats the whole purpose of an abbreviation.
+*}
+(*<*)end(*>*)