\texttt{cic}
+\section{Partially specified terms}
+--- il mondo delle tattiche e dintorni ---
+serve una intro che almeno cita il widget (per i patterns) e che fa
+il resoconto delle cose che abbiamo e che non descriviamo,
+sottolineando che abbiamo qualcosa da dire sui pattern e sui
+tattichini.\\
+
+
+
+\subsection{Patterns}
+Patterns are the textual counterpart of the MathML widget graphical
+selection.
+
+Matita benefits of a graphical interface and a powerful MathML rendering
+widget that allows the user to select pieces of the sequent he is working
+on. While this is an extremely intuitive way for the user to
+restrict the application of tactics, for example, to some subterms of the
+conclusion or some hypothesis, the way this action is recorded to the text
+script is not obvious.\\
+In \MATITA{} this issue is addressed by patterns.
+
+\subsubsection{Pattern syntax}
+A pattern is composed of two terms: a $\NT{sequent\_path}$ and a
+$\NT{wanted}$.
+The former mocks-up a sequent, discharging unwanted subterms with $?$ and
+selecting the interesting parts with the placeholder $\%$.
+The latter is a term that lives in the context of the placeholders.
+
+The concrete syntax is reported in table \ref{tab:pathsyn}
+\NOTE{uso nomi diversi dalla grammatica ma che hanno + senso}
+\begin{table}
+ \caption{\label{tab:pathsyn} Concrete syntax of \MATITA{} patterns.\strut}
+\hrule
+\[
+\begin{array}{@{}rcll@{}}
+ \NT{pattern} &
+ ::= & [~\verb+in match+~\NT{wanted}~]~[~\verb+in+~\NT{sequent\_path}~] & \\
+ \NT{sequent\_path} &
+ ::= & \{~\NT{ident}~[~\verb+:+~\NT{multipath}~]~\}~
+ [~\verb+\vdash+~\NT{multipath}~] & \\
+ \NT{wanted} & ::= & \NT{term} & \\
+ \NT{multipath} & ::= & \NT{term\_with\_placeholders} & \\
+\end{array}
+\]
+\hrule
+\end{table}
+
+\subsubsection{How patterns work}
+Patterns mimic the user's selection in two steps. The first one
+selects roots (subterms) of the sequent, using the
+$\NT{sequent\_path}$, while the second
+one searches the $\NT{wanted}$ term starting from these roots. Both are
+optional steps, and by convention the empty pattern selects the whole
+conclusion.
+
+\begin{description}
+\item[Phase 1]
+ concerns only the $[~\verb+in+~\NT{sequent\_path}~]$
+ part of the syntax. $\NT{ident}$ is an hypothesis name and
+ selects the assumption where the following optional $\NT{multipath}$
+ will operate. \verb+\vdash+ can be considered the name for the goal.
+ If the whole pattern is omitted, the whole goal will be selected.
+ If one or more hypotheses names are given the selection is restricted to
+ these assumptions. If a $\NT{multipath}$ is omitted the whole
+ assumption is selected. Remember that the user can be mostly
+ unaware of this syntax, since the system is able to write down a
+ $\NT{sequent\_path}$ starting from a visual selection.
+ \NOTE{Questo ancora non va in matita}
+
+ A $\NT{multipath}$ is a CiC term in which a special constant $\%$
+ is allowed.
+ The roots of discharged subterms are marked with $?$, while $\%$
+ is used to select roots. The default $\NT{multipath}$, the one that
+ selects the whole term, is simply $\%$.
+ Valid $\NT{multipath}$ are, for example, $(?~\%~?)$ or $\%~\verb+\to+~(\%~?)$
+ that respectively select the first argument of an application or
+ the source of an arrow and the head of the application that is
+ found in the arrow target.
+
+ The first phase selects not only terms (roots of subterms) but also
+ their context that will be eventually used in the second phase.
+
+\item[Phase 2]
+ plays a role only if the $[~\verb+in match+~\NT{wanted}~]$
+ part is specified. From the first phase we have some terms, that we
+ will see as subterm roots, and their context. For each of these
+ contexts the $\NT{wanted}$ term is disambiguated in it and the
+ corresponding root is searched for a subterm $\alpha$-equivalent to
+ $\NT{wanted}$. The result of this search is the selection the
+ pattern represents.
+
+\end{description}
+
+\noindent
+Since the first step is equipotent to the composition of the two
+steps, the system uses it to represent each visual selection.
+The second step is only meant for the
+experienced user that writes patterns by hand, since it really
+helps in writing concise patterns as we will see in the
+following examples.
+
+\subsubsection{Examples}
+To explain how the first step works let's give an example. Consider
+you want to prove the uniqueness of the identity element $0$ for natural
+sum, and that you can relay on the previously demonstrated left
+injectivity of the sum, that is $inj\_plus\_l:\forall x,y,z.x+y=z+y \to x =z$.
+Typing
+\begin{grafite}
+theorem valid_name: \forall n,m. m + n = n \to m = O.
+ intros (n m H).
+\end{grafite}
+\noindent
+leads you to the following sequent
+\sequent{
+n:nat\\
+m:nat\\
+H: m + n = n}{
+m=O
+}
+\noindent
+where you want to change the right part of the equivalence of the $H$
+hypothesis with $O + n$ and then use $inj\_plus\_l$ to prove $m=O$.
+\begin{grafite}
+ change in H:(? ? ? %) with (O + n).
+\end{grafite}
+\noindent
+This pattern, that is a simple instance of the $\NT{sequent\_path}$
+grammar entry, acts on $H$ that has type (without notation) $(eq~nat~(m+n)~n)$
+and discharges the head of the application and the first two arguments with a
+$?$ and selects the last argument with $\%$. The syntax may seem uncomfortable,
+but the user can simply select with the mouse the right part of the equivalence
+and left to the system the burden of writing down in the script file the
+corresponding pattern with $?$ and $\%$ in the right place (that is not
+trivial, expecially where implicit arguments are hidden by the notation, like
+the type $nat$ in this example).
+
+Changing all the occurrences of $n$ in the hypothesis $H$ with $O+n$
+works too and can be done, by the experienced user, writing directly
+a simpler pattern that uses the second phase.
+\begin{grafite}
+ change in match n in H with (O + n).
+\end{grafite}
+\noindent
+In this case the $\NT{sequent\_path}$ selects the whole $H$, while
+the second phase searches the wanted $n$ inside it by
+$\alpha$-equivalence. The resulting
+equivalence will be $m+(O+n)=O+n$ since the second phase found two
+occurrences of $n$ in $H$ and the tactic changed both.
+
+Just for completeness the second pattern is equivalent to the
+following one, that is less readable but uses only the first phase.
+\begin{grafite}
+ change in H:(? ? (? ? %) %) with (O + n).
+\end{grafite}
+\noindent
+
+\subsubsection{Tactics supporting patterns}
+In \MATITA{} all the tactics that can be restricted to subterm of the working
+sequent accept the pattern syntax. In particular these tactics are: simplify,
+change, fold, unfold, generalize, replace and rewrite.
+
+\NOTE{attualmente rewrite e fold non supportano phase 2. per
+supportarlo bisogna far loro trasformare il pattern phase1+phase2
+in un pattern phase1only come faccio nell'ultimo esempio. lo si fa
+con una pattern\_of(select(pattern))}
+
+\subsubsection{Comparison with Coq}
+Coq has a two diffrent ways of restricting the application of tactis to
+subterms of the sequent, both relaying on the same special syntax to identify
+a term occurrence.
+
+The first way is to use this special syntax to specify directly to the
+tactic the occurrnces of a wanted term that should be affected, while
+the second is to prepare the sequent with another tactic called
+pattern and the apply the real tactic. Note that the choice is not
+left to the user, since some tactics needs the sequent to be prepared
+with pattern and do not accept directly this special syntax.
+
+The base idea is that to identify a subterm of the sequent we can
+write it and say that we want, for example, the third and the fifth
+occurce of it (counting from left to right). In our previous example,
+to change only the left part of the equivalence, the correct command
+is
+\begin{grafite}
+ change n at 2 in H with (O + n)
+\end{grafite}
+\noindent
+meaning that in the hypothesis $H$ the $n$ we want to change is the
+second we encounter proceeding from left toright.
+
+The tactic pattern computes a
+$\beta$-expansion of a part of the sequent with respect to some
+occurrences of the given term. In the previous example the following
+command
+\begin{grafite}
+ pattern n at 2 in H
+\end{grafite}
+\noindent
+would have resulted in this sequent
+\begin{grafite}
+ n : nat
+ m : nat
+ H : (fun n0 : nat => m + n = n0) n
+ ============================
+ m = 0
+\end{grafite}
+\noindent
+where $H$ is $\beta$-expanded over the second $n$
+occurrence. This is a trick to make the unification algorithm ignore
+the head of the application (since the unification is essentially
+first-order) but normally operate on the arguments.
+This works for some tactics, like rewrite and replace,
+but for example not for change and other tactics that do not relay on
+unification.
+
+The idea behind this way of identifying subterms in not really far
+from the idea behind patterns, but really fails in extending to
+complex notation, since it relays on a mono-dimensional sequent representation.
+Real math notation places arguments upside-down (like in indexed sums or
+integrations) or even puts them inside a bidimensional matrix.
+In these cases using the mouse to select the wanted term is probably the
+only way to tell the system exactly what you want to do.
+
+One of the goals of \MATITA{} is to use modern publishing techiques, and
+adopting a method for restricting tactics application domain that discourages
+using heavy math notation, would definitively be a bad choice.
+
+\subsection{Tacticals}
+There are mainly two kinds of languages used by proof assistants to recorder
+proofs: tactic based and declarative. We will not investigate the philosophy
+aroud the choice that many proof assistant made, \MATITA{} included, and we
+will not compare the two diffrent approaches. We will describe the common
+issues of the tactic-based language approach and how \MATITA{} tries to solve
+them.
+
+\subsubsection{Tacticals overview}
+
+Tacticals first appeared in LCF and can be seen as programming
+constructs, like looping, branching, error recovery or sequential composition.
+The following simple example shows three tacticals in action
+\begin{grafite}
+theorem trivial:
+ \forall A,B:Prop.
+ A = B \to ((A \to B) \land (B \to A)).
+ intros (A B H).
+ split; intro;
+ [ rewrite < H. assumption.
+ | rewrite > H. assumption.
+ ]
+qed.
+\end{grafite}
+
+The first is ``\texttt{;}'' that combines the tactic \texttt{split}
+with \texttt{intro}, applying the latter to each goal opened by the
+former. Then we have ``\texttt{[}'' that branches on the goals (here
+we have two goals, the two sides of the logic and).
+The first goal $B$ (with $A$ in the context)
+is proved by the first sequence of tactics
+\texttt{rewrite} and \texttt{assumption}. Then we move to the second
+goal with the separator ``\texttt{|}''. The last tactical we see here
+is ``\texttt{.}'' that is a sequential composition that selects the
+first goal opened for the following tactic (instead of applying it to
+them all like ``\texttt{;}''). Note that usually ``\texttt{.}'' is
+not considered a tactical, but a sentence terminator (i.e. the
+delimiter of commands the proof assistant executes).
+
+Giving serious examples here is rather difficult, since they are hard
+to read without the interactive tool. To help the reader in
+understanding the following considerations we just give few common
+usage examples without a proof context.
+
+\begin{grafite}
+ elim z; try assumption; [ ... | ... ].
+ elim z; first [ assumption | reflexivity | id ].
+\end{grafite}
+
+The first example goes by induction on a term \texttt{z} and applies
+the tactic \texttt{assumption} to each opened goal eventually recovering if
+\texttt{assumption} fails. Here we are asking the system to close all
+trivial cases and then we branch on the remaining with ``\texttt{[}''.
+The second example goes again by induction on \texttt{z} and tries to
+close each opened goal first with \texttt{assumption}, if it fails it
+tries \texttt{reflexivity} and finally \texttt{id}
+that is the tactic that leaves the goal untouched without failing.
+
+Note that in the common implementation of tacticals both lines are
+compositions of tacticals and in particular they are a single
+statement (i.e. derived from the same non terminal entry of the
+grammar) ended with ``\texttt{.}''. As we will see later in \MATITA{}
+this is not true, since each atomic tactic or punctuation is considered
+a single statement.
+
+\subsubsection{Common issues of tactic(als)-based proof languages}
+We will examine the two main problems of tactic(als)-based proof script:
+maintainability and readability.
+
+Huge libraries of formal mathematics have been developed, and backward
+compatibility is a really time consuming task. \\
+A real-life example in the history of \MATITA{} was the reordering of
+goals opened by a tactic application. We noticed that some tactics
+were not opening goals in the expected order. In particular the
+\texttt{elim} tactic on a term of an inductive type with constructors
+$c_1, \ldots, c_n$ used to open goals in order $g_1, g_n, g_{n-1}
+\ldots, g_2$. The library of \MATITA{} was still in an embryonic state
+but some theorems about integers were there. The inductive type of
+$\mathcal{Z}$ has three constructors: $zero$, $pos$ and $neg$. All the
+induction proofs on this type where written without tacticals and,
+obviously, considering the three induction cases in the wrong order.
+Fixing the behavior of the tactic broke the library and two days of
+work were needed to make it compile again. The whole time was spent in
+finding the list of tactics used to prove the third induction case and
+swap it with the list of tactics used to prove the second case. If
+the proofs was structured with the branch tactical this task could
+have been done automatically.
+
+From this experience we learned that the use of tacticals for
+structuring proofs gives some help but may have some drawbacks in
+proof script readability. We must highlight that proof scripts
+readability is poor by itself, but in conjunction with tacticals it
+can be nearly impossible. The main cause is the fact that in proof
+scripts there is no trace of what you are working on. It is not rare
+for two different theorems to have the same proof script (while the
+proof is completely different).\\
+Bad readability is not a big deal for the user while he is
+constructing the proof, but is considerably a problem when he tries to
+reread what he did or when he shows his work to someone else. The
+workaround commonly used to read a script is to execute it again
+step-by-step, so that you can see the proof goal changing and you can
+follow the proof steps. This works fine until you reach a tactical. A
+compound statement, made by some basic tactics glued with tacticals,
+is executed in a single step, while it obviously performs lot of proof
+steps. In the fist example of the previous section the whole branch
+over the two goals (respectively the left and right part of the logic
+and) result in a single step of execution. The workaround doesn't work
+anymore unless you de-structure on the fly the proof, putting some
+``\texttt{.}'' where you want the system to stop.\\
+
+Now we can understand the tradeoff between script readability and
+proof structuring with tacticals. Using tacticals helps in maintaining
+scripts, but makes it really hard to read them again, cause of the way
+they are executed.
+
+\MATITA{} uses a language of tactics and tacticals, but tries to avoid
+this tradeoff, alluring the user to write structured proof without
+making it impossible to read them again.
+
+\subsubsection{The \MATITA{} approach: Tinycals}
+
+\begin{table}
+ \caption{\label{tab:tacsyn} Concrete syntax of \MATITA{} tacticals.\strut}
+\hrule
+\[
+\begin{array}{@{}rcll@{}}
+ \NT{punctuation} &
+ ::= & \SEMICOLON \quad|\quad \DOT \quad|\quad \SHIFT \quad|\quad \BRANCH \quad|\quad \MERGE \quad|\quad \POS{\mathrm{NUMBER}~} & \\
+ \NT{block\_kind} &
+ ::= & \verb+focus+ ~|~ \verb+try+ ~|~ \verb+solve+ ~|~ \verb+first+ ~|~ \verb+repeat+ ~|~ \verb+do+~\mathrm{NUMBER} & \\
+ \NT{block\_delimiter} &
+ ::= & \verb+begin+ ~|~ \verb+end+ & \\
+ \NT{tactical} &
+ ::= & \verb+skip+ ~|~ \NT{tactic} ~|~ \NT{block\_delimiter} ~|~ \NT{block\_kind} ~|~ \NT{punctuation} ~|~& \\
+\end{array}
+\]
+\hrule
+\end{table}
+
+\MATITA{} tacticals syntax is reported in table \ref{tab:tacsyn}.
+While one would expect to find structured constructs like
+$\verb+do+~n~\NT{tactic}$ the syntax allows pieces of tacticals to be written.
+This is essential for base idea behind matita tacticals: step-by-step execution.
+
+The low-level tacticals implementation of \MATITA{} allows a step-by-step
+execution of a tactical, that substantially means that a $\NT{block\_kind}$ is
+not executed as an atomic operation. This has two major benefits for the user,
+even being a so simple idea:
+\begin{description}
+\item[Proof structuring]
+ is much easier. Consider for example a proof by induction, and imagine you
+ are using classical tacticals in one of the state of the
+ art graphical interfaces for proof assistant like Proof General or Coq Ide.
+ After applying the induction principle you have to choose: structure
+ the proof or not. If you decide for the former you have to branch with
+ ``\texttt{[}'' and write tactics for all the cases separated by
+ ``\texttt{|}'' and then close the tactical with ``\texttt{]}''.
+ You can replace most of the cases by the identity tactic just to
+ concentrate only on the first goal, but you will have to go one step back and
+ one further every time you add something inside the tactical. Again this is
+ caused by the one step execution of tacticals and by the fact that to modify
+ the already executed script you have to undo one step.
+ And if you are board of doing so, you will finish in giving up structuring
+ the proof and write a plain list of tactics.\\
+ With step-by-step tacticals you can apply the induction principle, and just
+ open the branching tactical ``\texttt{[}''. Then you can interact with the
+ system reaching a proof of the first case, without having to specify any
+ tactic for the other goals. When you have proved all the induction cases, you
+ close the branching tactical with ``\texttt{]}'' and you are done with a
+ structured proof. \\
+ While \MATITA{} tacticals help in structuring proofs they allow you to
+ choose the amount of structure you want. There are no constraints imposed by
+ the system, and if the user wants he can even write completely plain proofs.
+
+\item[Rereading]
+ is possible. Going on step by step shows exactly what is going on. Consider
+ again a proof by induction, that starts applying the induction principle and
+ suddenly branches with a ``\texttt{[}''. This clearly separates all the
+ induction cases, but if the square brackets content is executed in one single
+ step you completely loose the possibility of rereading it and you have to
+ temporary remove the branching tactical to execute in a satisfying way the
+ branches. Again, executing step-by-step is the way you would like to review
+ the demonstration. Remember that understanding the proof from the script is
+ not easy, and only the execution of tactics (and the resulting transformed
+ goal) gives you the feeling of what is going on.
+\end{description}
+
+
\acknowledgements
We would like to thank all the students that during the past
five years collaborated in the \HELM{} project and contributed to
projects / helm.git / commitdiff