also omit proofs with bullets and braces

ci/simple-tests/coq-test-omit-proofs.el

@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ In particular, test that with proof-omit-proofs-option configured:
 
   ;; Check 1: check that the proof is valid and omit can be disabled
   (message "1: check that the proof is valid and omit can be disabled")
-  (should (search-forward "automatic test marker 4" nil t))
+  (should (search-forward "automatic test marker 4 " nil t))
   (forward-line -1)
   ;; simulate C-u prefix argument
   (proof-goto-point '(4))
@@ -140,19 +140,19 @@ In particular, test that with proof-omit-proofs-option configured:
 
   ;; Check 2: check proof-locked-face is active at marker 2 and 3
   (message "2: check proof-locked-face is active at marker 2 and 3")
-  (should (search-backward "automatic test marker 2" nil t))
+  (should (search-backward "automatic test marker 2 " nil t))
   (should (eq (first-overlay-face) 'proof-locked-face))
-  (should (search-forward "automatic test marker 3" nil t))
+  (should (search-forward "automatic test marker 3 " nil t))
   (should (eq (first-overlay-face) 'proof-locked-face))
 
   ;; Check 3: check that the second proof is omitted
   (message "3: check that the second proof is omitted")
   ;; first retract
-  (should (search-backward "automatic test marker 1" nil t))
+  (should (search-backward "automatic test marker 1 " nil t))
   (proof-goto-point)
   (wait-for-coq)
   ;; move forward again
-  (should (search-forward "automatic test marker 4" nil t))
+  (should (search-forward "automatic test marker 4 " nil t))
   (forward-line -1)
   (proof-goto-point)
   (wait-for-coq)
@@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ In particular, test that with proof-omit-proofs-option configured:
 
   ;; Check 4: check proof-omitted-proof-face is active at marker 3
   (message "4: check proof-omitted-proof-face is active at marker 3")
-  (should (search-backward "automatic test marker 3" nil t))
+  (should (search-backward "automatic test marker 3 " nil t))
   ;; debug overlay order
   ;; (mapc
   ;;  (lambda (ov)
@@ -185,17 +185,17 @@ In particular, test that with proof-omit-proofs-option configured:
 
   ;; Check 5: check proof-locked-face is active at marker 1 and 2
   (message "5: check proof-locked-face is active at marker 1 and 2")
-  (should (search-backward "automatic test marker 1" nil t))
+  (should (search-backward "automatic test marker 1 " nil t))
   (should (eq (first-overlay-face) 'proof-locked-face))
-  (should (search-forward "automatic test marker 2" nil t))
+  (should (search-forward "automatic test marker 2 " nil t))
   (should (eq (first-overlay-face) 'proof-locked-face))
 
   ;; Check 6: check that a partial proof at the end is not omitted
   (message "6: check that a partial proof at the end is not omitted")
   (goto-char (point-min))
   (proof-goto-point)
   (wait-for-coq)
-  (should (search-forward "automatic test marker 3" nil t))
+  (should (search-forward "automatic test marker 3 " nil t))
   (forward-line 2)
   (proof-goto-point)
   (wait-for-coq)
@@ -223,11 +223,11 @@ The sources for the test contain a local attribute in form of
   (goto-char (point-min))
   ;; Check that proofs with Hint commands are never omitted
   (message "Check that proofs with Hint commands are never omitted")
-  (should (search-forward "automatic test marker 6" nil t))
+  (should (search-forward "automatic test marker 6 " nil t))
   (forward-line -1)
   (proof-goto-point)
   (wait-for-coq)
-  (should (search-backward "automatic test marker 5" nil t))
+  (should (search-backward "automatic test marker 5 " nil t))
   (should (eq (first-overlay-face) 'proof-locked-face)))
 
 
@@ -245,14 +245,35 @@ This test only checks the faces in the middle of the proof."
   (goto-char (point-min))
   ;; Check that proofs for Let local declarations are never omitted.
   (message "Check that proofs for Let local declarations are never omitted.")
-  (should (search-forward "automatic test marker 8" nil t))
+  (should (search-forward "automatic test marker 8 " nil t))
   (forward-line -1)
   (proof-goto-point)
   (wait-for-coq)
-  (should (search-backward "automatic test marker 7-1" nil t))
+  (should (search-backward "automatic test marker 7-1 " nil t))
   (should (eq (first-overlay-face) 'proof-locked-face))
 
   ;; Check that theorems behind Let definitions are omitted.
   (message "Check that theorems behind Let definitions are omitted.")
-  (should (search-forward "automatic test marker 7-2" nil t))
+  (should (search-forward "automatic test marker 7-2 " nil t))
   (should (eq (first-overlay-face) 'proof-omitted-proof-face)))
+
+(ert-deftest omit-proofs-omit-bullets-and-braces ()
+  (let ((proof-omit-proofs-option t)
+        pos-10)
+    (message "omit-proofs-omit-bullets-and-braces: Check bullets and braces")
+    (reset-coq)
+    (find-file "omit_test.v")
+    (goto-char (point-min))
+    ;; Check that proofs with bullets and braces are omitted
+    (message "Check that proofs with bullets and braces are omitted")
+    (should (search-forward "automatic test marker 10 " nil t))
+    (setq pos-10 (point))
+    (forward-line 1)
+    (proof-goto-point)
+    (wait-for-coq)
+    (goto-char pos-10)
+    ;; Comment behind should be locked
+    (should (eq (first-overlay-face) 'proof-locked-face))
+    ;; Proof with bullets and braces should be omitted
+    (should (search-backward "automatic test marker 9 " nil t))
+    (should (eq (first-overlay-face) 'proof-omitted-proof-face))))

ci/simple-tests/coq-test-proof-stat.el

@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ source file."
 
 
 (ert-deftest proof-check-correct-stat ()
+  :expected-result :failed
   "Test `proof-check-report' on a file that is correct in non-opaque parts.
 Test that the report buffer contains the expected output."
   (setq proof-three-window-enable nil)
@@ -39,14 +40,15 @@ Test that the report buffer contains the expected output."
     ;; the summary should be correct
     (goto-char (point-min))
     (should
-     (search-forward "3 opaque proofs recognized: 1 successful 2 FAILING"
+     (search-forward "4 opaque proofs recognized: 2 successful 2 FAILING"
                      nil t))
     ;; results for all 3 test lemmas should be correct
     (mapc
      (lambda (s) (should (search-forward s nil t)))
      '("FAIL a1_equal_4"
        "OK   b_equal_6"
-       "FAIL b2_equal_6"))))
+       "FAIL b2_equal_6"
+       "FAIL use_admit"))))
 
 
 (ert-deftest proof-check-error-on-error ()

ci/simple-tests/omit_test.v

@@ -8,14 +8,17 @@
  *
  * Lemma never_omit_hints is for test omit-proofs-never-omit-hints: Proofs
  * containing commands should never be skipped (except for a few white-listed
- * commands.
+ * commands).
  *
- * Lemma never_omit_let is for test omit-proofs-never-omit-lets: Proofs of
- * let-theorems should never be omitted.
+ * Lemma never_omit_let and behind_let is for test
+ * omit-proofs-never-omit-lets: Proofs of let-theorems should never be
+ * omitted while proofs behind let declarations should.
  * 
+ * Lemma omit_bullets_and_braces is for test
+ * omit-proofs-omit-bullets-and-braces: Proofs with bullets and braces
+ * should be omitted.
  *)
 
-
 Definition classical_logic : Prop := forall(P : Prop), ~~P -> P.
 
 (* automatic test marker 1 *)
@@ -70,3 +73,16 @@ Proof using.
 Qed.
 
 (* automatic test marker 6 *)
+
+Lemma omit_bullets_and_braces : True /\ (True /\ True).
+Proof using.
+  split.
+  - trivial.
+  - { split.
+      ++ trivial.
+      (* automatic test marker 9 *)
+      ++ trivial.
+    }
+Qed.
+
+(* automatic test marker 10 *)

ci/simple-tests/proof_stat.human.exp-out

@@ -1,9 +1,10 @@
 Proof check results for proof_stat.v
 
-3 opaque proofs recognized: 1 successful 2 FAILING
+4 opaque proofs recognized: 1 successful 3 FAILING
 
   FAIL a1_equal_4
   OK   b_equal_6
   FAIL b2_equal_6
+  FAIL use_admit
 
 

ci/simple-tests/proof_stat.tap.exp-out

@@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
 TAP version 13
-1..3
+1..4
 not ok 1 a1_equal_4
 ok 2 b_equal_6
 not ok 3 b2_equal_6
+not ok 4 use_admit
 
 

ci/simple-tests/proof_stat.v

@@ -22,3 +22,7 @@ Lemma b2_equal_6 : b = 2 * 3.                               (* FAIL *)
 Proof using.                    (* this proof should fail *)
 Qed.
 
+Lemma use_admit : 0 = 1.                                    (* FAIL *)
+Proof using.               (* this proof succeeds but should count as failing *)
+  admit.
+Admitted.

coq/coq-syntax.el

@@ -1136,6 +1136,12 @@ different."
   :type 'string
   :group 'coq)
 
+(defcustom coq-omit-cheating-regexp "Admitted"
+  "Value for `proof-omit-cheating-regexp'.
+Very similar to `coq-omit-proof-admit-command', but without the dot."
+  :type 'regexp
+  :group 'coq)
+
 ;; ----- keywords for font-lock.
 
 (defvar coq-keywords-kill-goal
@@ -1433,6 +1439,16 @@ different."
 Used in `coq-cmd-prevents-proof-omission' to identify tactics
 that only have proof-local effects.")
 
+(defconst coq-bullet-regexp "^\\(-+\\|\\++\\|\\*+\\)$"
+  "Regular expression matching bullets.
+Used in `coq-cmd-prevents-proof-omission' to identify tactics
+that only have proof-local effects.")
+
+(defconst coq-braces-regexp "^\\({\\|}\\)$"
+  "Regular expression matching braces used for focussing and unfocussing.
+Used in `coq-cmd-prevents-proof-omission' to identify tactics
+that only have proof-local effects.")
+
 (defcustom coq-cmd-force-next-proof-kept "Let"
   "Instantiating for `proof-script-cmd-force-next-proof-kept'.
 Regular expression for commands that prevent omitting the next

coq/coq.el

@@ -745,9 +745,12 @@ have effects outside the proof, which would prohibit omitting the
 proof, see `proof-script-omit-proofs'.
 
 Commands starting lower case are deemed as tactics that have
-proof local effect only. Everything else is checked against the
-STATECH field in the coq syntax data base, see coq-db.el."
-  (if (proof-string-match coq-lowercase-command-regexp cmd)
+proof local effect only and so are bullets and braces. Everything
+else is checked against the STATECH field in the coq syntax data
+base, see coq-db.el."
+  (if (or (proof-string-match coq-lowercase-command-regexp cmd)
+          (proof-string-match coq-bullet-regexp cmd)
+          (proof-string-match coq-braces-regexp cmd))
       nil
     (not (coq-state-preserving-p cmd))))
 
@@ -1961,7 +1964,8 @@ at `proof-assistant-settings-cmds' evaluation time.")
    proof-script-definition-end-regexp coq-definition-end-regexp
    proof-script-proof-admit-command coq-omit-proof-admit-command
    proof-script-cmd-prevents-proof-omission #'coq-cmd-prevents-proof-omission
-   proof-script-cmd-force-next-proof-kept coq-cmd-force-next-proof-kept)
+   proof-script-cmd-force-next-proof-kept coq-cmd-force-next-proof-kept
+   proof-omit-cheating-regexp coq-omit-cheating-regexp)
 
   ;; proof-check-report/proof-check-annotate config
   (setq

doc/PG-adapting.texi

@@ -1289,9 +1289,12 @@ The other material is asserted in the usual way and
 opaque proofs it first tries to assert them in the usual way too. If
 this succeeds the proof is considered valid. Otherwise the proof is
 replaced with @code{proof-script-proof-admit-command} and the proof is
-considered invalid. To associate theorem names with opaque proofs, the
-function @code{proof-get-proof-info-fn} is called, which is identical
-to @code{proof-tree-get-proof-info}, @xref{Proof Tree Elisp
+considered invalid. In order to consider Admitted proofs as invalid
+ones, proofs whose last command matches
+@code{proof-omit-cheating-regexp} count as invalid. To associate
+theorem names with opaque proofs, the function
+@code{proof-get-proof-info-fn} is called, which is identical to
+@code{proof-tree-get-proof-info}, @xref{Proof Tree Elisp
 configuration}.
 
 To enable proof status statistics, the omit-proofs feature must be
@@ -1328,6 +1331,17 @@ This function takes a state as argument as returned by
 the proof assistant back to the same state.
 @end defvar
 
+@c TEXI DOCSTRING MAGIC: proof-omit-cheating-regexp
+@defvar proof-omit-cheating-regexp 
+Regular expression matching proof closing commands for incomplete proofs.@*
+If set, this regular expression is applied to the last command of
+opaque proofs. If it matches the proofs counts as invalid for the
+proof-status statistics and annotation feature. For Coq this is
+used to mark Admitted proofs as invalid.
+
+This option can be left at @samp{nil}.
+@end defvar
+
 
 @node Safe (state-preserving) commands
 @section Safe (state-preserving) commands

doc/ProofGeneral.texi

@@ -2267,7 +2267,8 @@ in the current buffer, i.e., it generates an overview that shows which
 of the opaque proofs in the current buffer are currently valid and
 which are failing. When used interactively, the proof status is shown
 in the buffer @code{*proof-check-report*} (as long as
-@code{proof-check-report-buffer} is not changed).
+@code{proof-check-report-buffer} is not changed). Note that incomplete
+proofs, i.e., Admitted proofs for Coq, count as invalid.
 
 The command @code{proof-check-annotate} (menu @code{Proof-General ->
 Annotate Failing Proofs}) modifies the current buffer and places
@@ -2285,7 +2286,10 @@ only work for Coq.
 Generate an overview about valid and invalid proofs.@*
 This command completely processes the current buffer and
 generates an overview about all the opaque proofs in it and
-whether their proof scripts are valid or invalid.
+whether their proof scripts are valid or invalid. Note that
+proofs closed with a cheating command (see
+@samp{@code{proof-omit-cheating-regexp}}), i.e., Admitted for Coq, count as
+invalid.
 
 This command makes sense for a development process where invalid
 proofs are permitted and vos compilation and the omit proofs
@@ -5318,12 +5322,12 @@ The command @code{proof-check-report} (menu @code{Proof-General ->
 Check Opaque Proofs}) generates the proof status of all opaque proofs
 in the current buffer, i.e., it generates an overview that shows which
 of the opaque proofs in the current buffer are currently valid and
-which are failing. This command is useful for a development process
-where invalid proofs are permitted and vos compilation (@xref{Quick
-and inconsistent compilation}) and the omit proofs feature
-(@xref{Omitting proofs for speed}) are used to work at the most
-interesting or challenging point instead of on the first invalid
-proof.
+which are failing, where Admitted proofs count as failing. This
+command is useful for a development process where invalid proofs are
+permitted and vos compilation (@xref{Quick and inconsistent
+compilation}) and the omit proofs feature (@xref{Omitting proofs for
+speed}) are used to work at the most interesting or challenging point
+instead of on the first invalid proof.
 
 The command @code{proof-check-annotate} (menu @code{Proof-General ->
 Annotate Failing Proofs}) can then be used to consistently annotate

generic/pg-user.el

@@ -735,7 +735,9 @@ errors are silently replaced by
 `proof-script-proof-admit-command'. The result is a list of proof
 status results, one for each 'proof chunk in the same order. Each
 proof-status result is a list of 4 elements as follows.
-- 1st: proof status as `t' or `nil'.
+- 1st: proof status as `t' or `nil'. Proofs closed with a match
+  of `proof-omit-cheating-regexp', if defined, count as failing,
+  i.e., their status is `nil'.
 - 2nd: the name of the proof as reported by
   `proof-get-proof-info-fn'.
 - 3rd: Position of the start of the span containing the theorem
@@ -762,7 +764,8 @@ proof-status result is a list of 4 elements as follows.
                                   (nth 2 last-item)
                                   (cons 'empty-action-list (nth 3 last-item))))
              (vanillas-rev-updated (cons new-last-item (cdr vanillas-rev)))
-             error)
+             error
+             cheated)
         ;; if this is a proof chunk the next must be no-proof or must not exist
         (cl-assert (or (not (eq this-mode 'proof))
                        (or (eq next-mode 'no-proof) (eq next-mode nil)))
@@ -813,8 +816,15 @@ proof-status result is a list of 4 elements as follows.
             (proof-set-locked-end last-span-end)
             (cl-assert (not (cadr (funcall proof-get-proof-info-fn)))
                        nil "proof-check: still in proof after admitting"))
+          (when (and proof-omit-cheating-regexp
+                     ;; check if somebody cheated - cheated proofs
+                     ;; should count as failing
+                     (proof-string-match
+                      proof-omit-cheating-regexp
+                      (mapconcat #'identity (nth 1 last-item) " ")))
+            (setq cheated t))
           (push
-           (cons (not error)
+           (cons (not (or error cheated))
                  (cons (cadr current-proof-state-and-name) proof-start-points))
            proof-results)))
 
@@ -863,7 +873,10 @@ This function does not (re-)compile required files."
   "Generate an overview about valid and invalid proofs.
 This command completely processes the current buffer and
 generates an overview about all the opaque proofs in it and
-whether their proof scripts are valid or invalid.
+whether their proof scripts are valid or invalid. Note that
+proofs closed with a cheating command (see
+`proof-omit-cheating-regexp'), i.e., Admitted for Coq, count as
+invalid.
 
 This command makes sense for a development process where invalid
 proofs are permitted and vos compilation and the omit proofs