(*  Title:      HOL/Hoare/Separation.thy
    Author:     Tobias Nipkow
    Copyright   2003 TUM

A first attempt at a nice syntactic embedding of separation logic.
Already builds on the theory for list abstractions.

If we suppress the H parameter for "List", we have to hardwired this
into parser and pretty printer, which is not very modular.
Alternative: some syntax like <P> which stands for P H. No more
compact, but avoids the funny H.
*)

section ‹Separation logic›

theory Separation
  imports Hoare_Logic_Abort SepLogHeap
begin

text‹The semantic definition of a few connectives:›

definition ortho :: "heap → heap → bool" (infix ‹⊥› 55)
  where "h1 ⊥ h2 ⟷ dom h1 ∩ dom h2 = {}"

definition is_empty :: "heap → bool"
  where "is_empty h ⟷ h = Map.empty"

definition singl:: "heap → nat → nat → bool"
  where "singl h x y ⟷ dom h = {x} & h x = Some y"

definition star:: "(heap → bool) → (heap → bool) → (heap → bool)"
  where "star P Q = (λh. ∃h1 h2. h = h1++h2 ∧ h1 ⊥ h2 ∧ P h1 ∧ Q h2)"

definition wand:: "(heap → bool) → (heap → bool) → (heap → bool)"
  where "wand P Q = (λh. ∀h'. h' ⊥ h ∧ P h' ⟶ Q(h++h'))"

text‹This is what assertions look like without any syntactic sugar:›

lemma "VARS x y z w h
 {star (%h. singl h x y) (%h. singl h z w) h}
 SKIP
 {x ≠ z}"
apply vcg
apply(auto simp:star_def ortho_def singl_def)
done

text‹Now we add nice input syntax. To suppress the heap parameter
  the connectives, we assume it is always called H and add/remove it
  parsing/printing. Thus every pointer program needs to have a
  variable H, and assertions should not contain any locally
  Hs - otherwise they may bind the implicit H.›

syntax
 "_emp" :: "bool" (‹emp›)
 "_singl" :: "nat → nat → bool"  (‹(‹open_block notation=‹mixfix singl››[_ ↦ _])›)
 "_star" :: "bool → bool → bool"  (infixl ‹**› 60)
 "_wand" :: "bool → bool → bool"  (infixl ‹-*› 60)

syntax_consts
  "_emp" ⇌ is_empty and
  "_singl" ⇌ singl and
  "_star" ⇌ star and
  "_wand" ⇌ wand

(* FIXME does not handle "_idtdummy" *)
ML ‹
 ― ‹‹free_tr› takes care of free vars in the scope of separation logic connectives:
 they are implicitly applied to the heap›
  free_tr(t as Free _) = t $ Syntax.free "H"
 🚫‹| free_tr((list as Free("List",_))$ p $ ps) = list $ Syntax.free "H" $ p $ ps›
 | free_tr t = t

  emp_tr [] = Syntax.const const_syntax‹is_empty› $ Syntax.free "H"
 | emp_tr ts = raise TERM ("emp_tr", ts);
  singl_tr [p, q] = Syntax.const const_syntax‹singl› $ Syntax.free "H" $ p $ q
 | singl_tr ts = raise TERM ("singl_tr", ts);
  star_tr [P,Q] = Syntax.const const_syntax‹star› $
 absfree ("H", dummyT) (free_tr P) $ absfree ("H", dummyT) (free_tr Q) $
 Syntax.free "H"
 | star_tr ts = raise TERM ("star_tr", ts);
  wand_tr [P, Q] = Syntax.const const_syntax‹wand› $
 absfree ("H", dummyT) P $ absfree ("H", dummyT) Q $ Syntax.free "H"
 | wand_tr ts = raise TERM ("wand_tr", ts);
 ›

parse_translation ‹
 [(syntax_const‹_emp›, K emp_tr),
 (syntax_const‹_singl›, K singl_tr),
 (syntax_const‹_star›, K star_tr),
 (syntax_const‹_wand›, K wand_tr)]
 ›

text‹Now it looks much better:›

lemma "VARS H x y z w
 {[x↦y] ** [z↦w]}
 SKIP
 {x ≠ z}"
apply vcg
apply(auto simp:star_def ortho_def singl_def)
done

lemma "VARS H x y z w
 {emp ** emp}
 SKIP
 {emp}"
apply vcg
apply(auto simp:star_def ortho_def is_empty_def)
done

text‹But the output is still unreadable. Thus we also strip the heap
  upon output:›

ML ‹
 

  strip (Abs(_,_,(t as Const("_free",_) $ Free _) $ Bound 0)) = t
 | strip (Abs(_,_,(t as Free _) $ Bound 0)) = t
 🚫‹| strip (Abs(_,_,((list as Const("List",_))$ Bound 0 $ p $ ps))) = list$p$ps›
 | strip (Abs(_,_,(t as Const("_var",_) $ Var _) $ Bound 0)) = t
 | strip (Abs(_,_,P)) = P
 | strip (Const(const_syntax‹is_empty›,_)) = Syntax.const syntax_const‹_emp›
 | strip t = t;

 

  is_empty_tr' [_] = Syntax.const syntax_const‹_emp›
  singl_tr' [_,p,q] = Syntax.const syntax_const‹_singl› $ p $ q
  star_tr' [P,Q,_] = Syntax.const syntax_const‹_star› $ strip P $ strip Q
  wand_tr' [P,Q,_] = Syntax.const syntax_const‹_wand› $ strip P $ strip Q

 
 ›

print_translation ‹
 [(const_syntax‹is_empty›, K is_empty_tr'),
 (const_syntax‹singl›, K singl_tr'),
 (const_syntax‹star›, K star_tr'),
 (const_syntax‹wand›, K wand_tr')]
 ›

text‹Now the intermediate proof states are also readable:›

lemma "VARS H x y z w
 {[x↦y] ** [z↦w]}
 y := w
 {x ≠ z}"
apply vcg
apply(auto simp:star_def ortho_def singl_def)
done

lemma "VARS H x y z w
 {emp ** emp}
 SKIP
 {emp}"
apply vcg
apply(auto simp:star_def ortho_def is_empty_def)
done

text‹So far we have unfolded the separation logic connectives in
 . Here comes a simple example of a program proof that uses a law
  separation logic instead.›

― ‹a law of separation logic›
lemma star_comm: "P ** Q = Q ** P"
  by(auto simp add:star_def ortho_def dest: map_add_comm)

lemma "VARS H x y z w
 {P ** Q}
 SKIP
 {Q ** P}"
apply vcg
apply(simp add: star_comm)
done


lemma "VARS H
 {p≠0 ∧ [p ↦ x] ** List H q qs}
 H := H(p ↦ q)
 {List H p (p#qs)}"
apply vcg
apply(simp add: star_def ortho_def singl_def)
apply clarify
apply(subgoal_tac "p ∉ set qs")
 prefer 2
 apply(blast dest:list_in_heap)
apply simp
done

lemma "VARS H p q r
  {List H p Ps ** List H q Qs}
  WHILE p ≠ 0
  INV {∃ps qs. (List H p ps ** List H q qs) ∧ rev ps @ qs = rev Ps @ Qs}
  DO r := p; p := the(H p); H := H(r ↦ q); q := r OD
  {List H q (rev Ps @ Qs)}"
apply vcg
apply(simp_all add: star_def ortho_def singl_def)

apply fastforce

apply (clarsimp simp add:List_non_null)
apply(rename_tac ps')
apply(rule_tac x = ps' in exI)
apply(rule_tac x = "p#qs" in exI)
apply simp
apply(rule_tac x = "h1(p:=None)" in exI)
apply(rule_tac x = "h2(p↦q)" in exI)
apply simp
apply(rule conjI)
 apply(rule ext)
 apply(simp add:map_add_def split:option.split)
apply(rule conjI)
 apply blast
apply(simp add:map_add_def split:option.split)
apply(rule conjI)
apply(subgoal_tac "p ∉ set qs")
 prefer 2
 apply(blast dest:list_in_heap)
apply(simp)
apply fast

apply(fastforce)
done

end