`:rewrite`

rules (possibly conditional ones)
Major Section: RULE-CLASSES

See rule-classes for a general discussion of rule classes and
how they are used to build rules from formulas. Example `:`

`corollary`

formulas from which `:rewrite`

rules might be built are:

Example: (equal (+ x y) (+ y x)) replace (+ a b) by (+ b a) provided certain heuristics approve the permutation.Note: One(implies (true-listp x) replace (append a nil) by a, if (equal (append x nil) x)) (true-listp a) rewrites to t

(implies replace (member a (append b c)) by (and (eqlablep e) (member a (append c b)) in contexts (true-listp x) in which propositional equivalence (true-listp y)) is sufficient, provided (eqlablep a) (iff (member e (append x y)) (true-listp b) and (true-listp c) (member e (append y x)))) rewrite to t and the permutative heuristics approve

General Form: (and ... (implies (and ...hi...) (implies (and ...hk...) (and ... (equiv lhs rhs) ...))) ...)

`:rewrite`

rule class object might create many rewrite
rules from the `:`

`corollary`

formula. To create the rules, we first
translate the formula (expanding all macros; also see trans).
Next, we eliminate all `lambda`

s; one may think of this step as
simply substituting away every `let`

, `let*`

, and `mv-let`

in the
formula. We then flatten the `and`

and `implies`

structure of the
formula, transforming it into a conjunction of formulas, each of the
form
(implies (and h1 ... hn) concl)where no hypothesis is a conjunction and

`concl`

is neither a conjunction
nor an implication. If necessary, the hypothesis of such a conjunct may be
vacuous. We then further coerce each `concl`

into the form
`(equiv lhs rhs)`

, where `equiv`

is a known equivalence relation, by
replacing any `concl`

not of that form by `(iff concl t)`

. A `concl`

of the form `(not term)`

is considered to be of the form
`(iff term nil)`

. By these steps we reduce the given `:`

`corollary`

to a sequence of conjuncts, each of which is of the form
(implies (and h1 ... hn) (equiv lhs rhs))where

`equiv`

is a known equivalence relation. See equivalence for a
general discussion of the introduction of new equivalence relations.
We create a `:rewrite`

rule for each such conjunct, if possible, and
otherwise cause an error. It is possible to create a rewrite rule from such
a conjunct provided `lhs`

is not a variable, a quoted constant, a
`let`

-expression, a `lambda`

application, or an `if`

-expression.

A `:rewrite`

rule is used when any instance of the `lhs`

occurs in a
context in which the equivalence relation is operative. First, we find
a substitution that makes `lhs`

equal to the target term. Then we attempt
to relieve the instantiated hypotheses of the rule. Hypotheses that are
fully instantiated are relieved by recursive rewriting. Hypotheses that
contain ``free variables'' (variables not assigned by the unifying
substitution) are relieved by attempting to guess a suitable instance so as
to make the hypothesis equal to some known assumption in the context of the
target. If the hypotheses are relieved, and certain restrictions that
prevent some forms of infinite regress are met (see loop-stopper), the
target is replaced by the instantiated `rhs`

, which is then recursively
rewritten.

ACL2's rewriting process has undergone some optimization. In particular,
when a term `t1`

is rewritten to a new term `t2`

, the rewriter is then
immediately applied to `t2`

. On rare occasions you may find that you do
not want this behavior, in which case you may wish to use a trick involving
`hide`

that is described near the end of the documentation for meta;
see meta.

At the moment, the best description of how ACL2 `:rewrite`

rules are
used is perhaps in the discussion of ``Replacement Rules'' on page
279 of A Computational Logic Handbook (second edition).