Starting Intro pattern

Author: Villetaneuse

src/IntroPatternsTutorials.v

@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+(** * (Default) Intro Patterns Tutorials
+
+    *** Summary
+
+    This tutorial is about (default) intro patterns we can use in a proof
+    with default Coq tactics. Intro Patterns help gain a lot of time during
+    proofs writing and make the proofs more natural to read and write.
+    Once used to intro patterns, you can't live without it!
+
+    *** Prerequisites
+
+    Needed:
+    - The user should already have some very minimal Coq experience with proof
+      writing.
+
+    Installation:
+    This tutorial should work for Coq V8.17 or later.
+*)
+
+Lemma disjunctive_pattern (A B : Prop) : A \/ B -> B \/ A.
+Proof.
+  (* disjunctive pattern *)
+  intros [H | H'].
+  - right; exact H.
+  - left; exact H'.
+Qed.
+
+Lemma cunjunctive_pattern (A B : Prop) : A /\ B -> B /\ A.
+Proof.
+  (* conjunctive pattern *)
+  intros [H H'].
+  split.
+  - exact H'.
+  - exact H.
+Qed.
+
+Lemma throwing_away (A B : Prop) : A /\ B -> A.
+Proof.
+  (* useless parts can be thrown away *)
+  intros [H _].
+  exact H.
+Qed.
+
+Lemma nested_intro_pat (A B C : Prop) : A /\ (B \/ C) -> (A /\ B) \/ (A /\ C).
+Proof.
+  (* intro patterns can be nested *)
+  intros [HA [HB | HC]].
+  - left. split.
+    + exact HA.
+    + exact HB.
+  - right. split.
+    + exact HA.
+    + exact HC.
+Qed.
+
+Lemma arrow_intro_pat (x : nat) : x = 0 -> x + x = x.
+Proof.
+  (* the -> intro pattern acts like "rewrite name; clear name" *)
+  intros ->. reflexivity.
+Qed.
+
+Lemma apply_in_intro_pat (x : nat) : x = 0 -> x = x + x.
+Proof.
+  (* the hyp%term intro pattern acts like "intros hyp; apply term in hyp" *)
+  intros Hx%exple5. symmetry. exact Hx.
+Qed.
+
+Lemma composition_of_apply_in (x : nat) : x = 0 -> x = x + x.
+Proof.
+  (* % intro patterns can be composed *)
+  intros Hx%exple5%eq_sym. exact Hx.
+Qed.
+
+Lemma intro_pat_following_as (A B : Prop) : A -> B -> A /\ B.
+Proof.
+  intros H1 H2.
+  (* intro patterns can occur (almost) every time you name a term.
+     assert ([H H']: A /\ B) fails but this works: *)
+  assert (A /\ B) as [H H'].
+  (* this was an artificial example *)
+  easy. easy.
+Qed.
+