Theory Records
section ‹Using extensible records in HOL -- points and coloured points›
theory Records
imports Main
begin
subsection ‹Points›
record point =
xpos :: nat
ypos :: nat
text ‹
Apart many other things, above record declaration produces the
following theorems:
›
thm point.simps
thm point.iffs
thm point.defs
text ‹
The set of theorems @{thm [source] point.simps} is added
automatically to the standard simpset, @{thm [source] point.iffs} is
added to the Classical Reasoner and Simplifier context.
┉ Record declarations define new types and type abbreviations:
@{text [display]
‹point = ⦇xpos :: nat, ypos :: nat⦈ = () point_ext_type
'a point_scheme = ⦇xpos :: nat, ypos :: nat, ... :: 'a⦈ = 'a point_ext_type›}
›
consts foo2 :: "⦇xpos :: nat, ypos :: nat⦈"
consts foo4 :: "'a ⇒ ⦇xpos :: nat, ypos :: nat, … :: 'a⦈"
subsubsection ‹Introducing concrete records and record schemes›
definition foo1 :: point
where "foo1 = ⦇xpos = 1, ypos = 0⦈"
definition foo3 :: "'a ⇒ 'a point_scheme"
where "foo3 ext = ⦇xpos = 1, ypos = 0, … = ext⦈"
subsubsection ‹Record selection and record update›
definition getX :: "'a point_scheme ⇒ nat"
where "getX r = xpos r"
definition setX :: "'a point_scheme ⇒ nat ⇒ 'a point_scheme"
where "setX r n = r ⦇xpos := n⦈"
subsubsection ‹Some lemmas about records›
text ‹Basic simplifications.›
lemma "point.make n p = ⦇xpos = n, ypos = p⦈"
by (simp only: point.make_def)
lemma "xpos ⦇xpos = m, ypos = n, … = p⦈ = m"
by simp
lemma "⦇xpos = m, ypos = n, … = p⦈⦇xpos:= 0⦈ = ⦇xpos = 0, ypos = n, … = p⦈"
by simp
text ‹┉ Equality of records.›
lemma "n = n' ⟹ p = p' ⟹ ⦇xpos = n, ypos = p⦈ = ⦇xpos = n', ypos = p'⦈"
by simp
lemma "⦇xpos = n, ypos = p⦈ = ⦇xpos = n', ypos = p'⦈ ⟹ n = n'"
by simp
lemma "r⦇xpos := n⦈⦇ypos := m⦈ = r⦇ypos := m⦈⦇xpos := n⦈"
by simp
lemma "r⦇xpos := n⦈ = r⦇xpos := n'⦈" if "n = n'"
proof -
let "?lhs = ?rhs" = ?thesis
from that have "xpos ?lhs = xpos ?rhs" by simp
then show ?thesis by simp
qed
text ‹┉ Surjective pairing›
lemma "r = ⦇xpos = xpos r, ypos = ypos r⦈"
by simp
lemma "r = ⦇xpos = xpos r, ypos = ypos r, … = point.more r⦈"
by simp
text ‹┉ Representation of records by cases or (degenerate) induction.›
lemma "r⦇xpos := n⦈⦇ypos := m⦈ = r⦇ypos := m⦈⦇xpos := n⦈"
proof (cases r)
fix xpos ypos more
assume "r = ⦇xpos = xpos, ypos = ypos, … = more⦈"
then show ?thesis by simp
qed
lemma "r⦇xpos := n⦈⦇ypos := m⦈ = r⦇ypos := m⦈⦇xpos := n⦈"
proof (induct r)
fix xpos ypos more
show "⦇xpos = xpos, ypos = ypos, … = more⦈⦇xpos := n, ypos := m⦈ =
⦇xpos = xpos, ypos = ypos, … = more⦈⦇ypos := m, xpos := n⦈"
by simp
qed
lemma "r⦇xpos := n⦈⦇xpos := m⦈ = r⦇xpos := m⦈"
proof (cases r)
fix xpos ypos more
assume "r = ⦇xpos = xpos, ypos = ypos, … = more⦈"
then show ?thesis by simp
qed
lemma "r⦇xpos := n⦈⦇xpos := m⦈ = r⦇xpos := m⦈"
proof (cases r)
case fields
then show ?thesis by simp
qed
lemma "r⦇xpos := n⦈⦇xpos := m⦈ = r⦇xpos := m⦈"
by (cases r) simp
text ‹┉ Concrete records are type instances of record schemes.›
definition foo5 :: nat
where "foo5 = getX ⦇xpos = 1, ypos = 0⦈"
text ‹┉ Manipulating the ``‹...›'' (more) part.›
definition incX :: "'a point_scheme ⇒ 'a point_scheme"
where "incX r = ⦇xpos = xpos r + 1, ypos = ypos r, … = point.more r⦈"
lemma "incX r = setX r (Suc (getX r))"
by (simp add: getX_def setX_def incX_def)
text ‹┉ An alternative definition.›
definition incX' :: "'a point_scheme ⇒ 'a point_scheme"
where "incX' r = r⦇xpos := xpos r + 1⦈"
subsection ‹Coloured points: record extension›
datatype colour = Red | Green | Blue
record cpoint = point +
colour :: colour
text ‹
The record declaration defines a new type constructor and abbreviations:
@{text [display]
‹cpoint = ⦇xpos :: nat, ypos :: nat, colour :: colour⦈ =
() cpoint_ext_type point_ext_type
'a cpoint_scheme = ⦇xpos :: nat, ypos :: nat, colour :: colour, … :: 'a⦈ =
'a cpoint_ext_type point_ext_type›}
›
consts foo6 :: cpoint
consts foo7 :: "⦇xpos :: nat, ypos :: nat, colour :: colour⦈"
consts foo8 :: "'a cpoint_scheme"
consts foo9 :: "⦇xpos :: nat, ypos :: nat, colour :: colour, … :: 'a⦈"
text ‹Functions on ‹point› schemes work for ‹cpoints› as well.›
definition foo10 :: nat
where "foo10 = getX ⦇xpos = 2, ypos = 0, colour = Blue⦈"
subsubsection ‹Non-coercive structural subtyping›
text ‹Term \<^term>‹foo11› has type \<^typ>‹cpoint›, not type \<^typ>‹point› --- Great!›
definition foo11 :: cpoint
where "foo11 = setX ⦇xpos = 2, ypos = 0, colour = Blue⦈ 0"
subsection ‹Other features›
text ‹Field names contribute to record identity.›
record point' =
xpos' :: nat
ypos' :: nat
text ‹
⇤ May not apply \<^term>‹getX› to @{term [source] "⦇xpos' = 2, ypos' = 0⦈"}
--- type error.
›
text ‹┉ Polymorphic records.›
record 'a point'' = point +
content :: 'a
type_synonym cpoint'' = "colour point''"
text ‹Updating a record field with an identical value is simplified.›
lemma "r⦇xpos := xpos r⦈ = r"
by simp
text ‹Only the most recent update to a component survives simplification.›
lemma "r⦇xpos := x, ypos := y, xpos := x'⦈ = r⦇ypos := y, xpos := x'⦈"
by simp
text ‹
In some cases its convenient to automatically split (quantified) records.
For this purpose there is the simproc @{ML [source] "Record.split_simproc"}
and the tactic @{ML [source] "Record.split_simp_tac"}. The simplification
procedure only splits the records, whereas the tactic also simplifies the
resulting goal with the standard record simplification rules. A
(generalized) predicate on the record is passed as parameter that decides
whether or how `deep' to split the record. It can peek on the subterm
starting at the quantified occurrence of the record (including the
quantifier). The value \<^ML>‹0› indicates no split, a value greater
\<^ML>‹0› splits up to the given bound of record extension and finally the
value \<^ML>‹~1› completely splits the record. @{ML [source]
"Record.split_simp_tac"} additionally takes a list of equations for
simplification and can also split fixed record variables.
›
lemma "(∀r. P (xpos r)) ⟶ (∀x. P x)"
apply (tactic ‹simp_tac (put_simpset HOL_basic_ss \<^context>
addsimprocs [Record.split_simproc (K ~1)]) 1›)
apply simp
done
lemma "(∀r. P (xpos r)) ⟶ (∀x. P x)"
apply (tactic ‹Record.split_simp_tac \<^context> [] (K ~1) 1›)
apply simp
done
lemma "(∃r. P (xpos r)) ⟶ (∃x. P x)"
apply (tactic ‹simp_tac (put_simpset HOL_basic_ss \<^context>
addsimprocs [Record.split_simproc (K ~1)]) 1›)
apply simp
done
lemma "(∃r. P (xpos r)) ⟶ (∃x. P x)"
apply (tactic ‹Record.split_simp_tac \<^context> [] (K ~1) 1›)
apply simp
done
lemma "⋀r. P (xpos r) ⟹ (∃x. P x)"
apply (tactic ‹simp_tac (put_simpset HOL_basic_ss \<^context>
addsimprocs [Record.split_simproc (K ~1)]) 1›)
apply auto
done
lemma "⋀r. P (xpos r) ⟹ (∃x. P x)"
apply (tactic ‹Record.split_simp_tac \<^context> [] (K ~1) 1›)
apply auto
done
lemma "P (xpos r) ⟹ (∃x. P x)"
apply (tactic ‹Record.split_simp_tac \<^context> [] (K ~1) 1›)
apply auto
done
notepad
begin
have "∃x. P x"
if "P (xpos r)" for P r
apply (insert that)
apply (tactic ‹Record.split_simp_tac \<^context> [] (K ~1) 1›)
apply auto
done
end
text ‹
The effect of simproc @{ML [source] Record.ex_sel_eq_simproc} is illustrated
by the following lemma.›
lemma "∃r. xpos r = x"
by (tactic ‹simp_tac (put_simpset HOL_basic_ss \<^context>
addsimprocs [Record.ex_sel_eq_simproc]) 1›)
subsection ‹A more complex record expression›
record ('a, 'b, 'c) bar = bar1 :: 'a
bar2 :: 'b
bar3 :: 'c
bar21 :: "'b × 'a"
bar32 :: "'c × 'b"
bar31 :: "'c × 'a"
print_record "('a,'b,'c) bar"
subsection ‹Some code generation›
export_code foo1 foo3 foo5 foo10 checking SML
text ‹
Code generation can also be switched off, for instance for very large
records:›
declare [[record_codegen = false]]
record not_so_large_record =
bar520 :: nat
bar521 :: "nat × nat"
declare [[record_codegen = true]]
end