feat: failing macros to show error from first registered rule (#3771)
fixes #3770 Also start `rfl` with a `fail` message that is hopefully more helpful than what we get now (see updated test output). This would be a cheaper way to address #3302 without changing the implementation of rfl (as tried in #3714).
This commit is contained in:
Joachim Breitner
GitHub
parent
466ef74ccc
commit
301dd7ba16
4 changed files with 73 additions and 42 deletions
|
|
@ -354,6 +354,9 @@ macro:1 x:tactic tk:" <;> " y:tactic:2 : tactic => `(tactic|
|
|||
with_annotate_state $tk skip
|
||||
all_goals $y:tactic)
|
||||
|
||||
/-- `fail msg` is a tactic that always fails, and produces an error using the given message. -/
|
||||
syntax (name := fail) "fail" (ppSpace str)? : tactic
|
||||
|
||||
/-- `eq_refl` is equivalent to `exact rfl`, but has a few optimizations. -/
|
||||
syntax (name := eqRefl) "eq_refl" : tactic
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -365,8 +368,12 @@ for new reflexive relations.
|
|||
Remark: `rfl` is an extensible tactic. We later add `macro_rules` to try different
|
||||
reflexivity theorems (e.g., `Iff.rfl`).
|
||||
-/
|
||||
macro "rfl" : tactic => `(tactic| eq_refl)
|
||||
macro "rfl" : tactic => `(tactic| fail "The rfl tactic failed. Possible reasons:
|
||||
- The goal is not a reflexive relation (neither `=` nor a relation with a @[refl] lemma).
|
||||
- The arguments of the relation are not equal.
|
||||
Try using the reflexivitiy lemma for your relation explicitly, e.g. `exact Eq.rfl`.")
|
||||
|
||||
macro_rules | `(tactic| rfl) => `(tactic| eq_refl)
|
||||
macro_rules | `(tactic| rfl) => `(tactic| exact HEq.rfl)
|
||||
|
||||
/--
|
||||
|
|
@ -907,9 +914,6 @@ example : ∀ x : Nat, x = x := by unhygienic
|
|||
-/
|
||||
macro "unhygienic " t:tacticSeq : tactic => `(tactic| set_option tactic.hygienic false in $t)
|
||||
|
||||
/-- `fail msg` is a tactic that always fails, and produces an error using the given message. -/
|
||||
syntax (name := fail) "fail" (ppSpace str)? : tactic
|
||||
|
||||
/--
|
||||
`checkpoint tac` acts the same as `tac`, but it caches the input and output of `tac`,
|
||||
and if the file is re-elaborated and the input matches, the tactic is not re-run and
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -158,8 +158,9 @@ partial def evalTactic (stx : Syntax) : TacticM Unit := do
|
|||
| _ => throwError m!"unexpected tactic{indentD stx}"
|
||||
where
|
||||
throwExs (failures : Array EvalTacticFailure) : TacticM Unit := do
|
||||
if let some fail := failures[0]? then
|
||||
-- Recall that `failures[0]` is the highest priority evalFn/macro
|
||||
if h : 0 < failures.size then
|
||||
-- For macros we want to report the error from the first registered / last tried rule (#3770)
|
||||
let fail := failures[failures.size-1]
|
||||
fail.state.restore (restoreInfo := true)
|
||||
throw fail.exception -- (*)
|
||||
else
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
23
tests/lean/run/issue3770.lean
Normal file
23
tests/lean/run/issue3770.lean
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
|
|||
macro "foo" : tactic => `(tactic|fail "first")
|
||||
macro_rules | `(tactic|foo) => `(tactic|exact 1)
|
||||
macro_rules | `(tactic|foo) => `(tactic|fail "middle")
|
||||
macro_rules | `(tactic|foo) => `(tactic|exact 2)
|
||||
macro_rules | `(tactic|foo) => `(tactic|fail "last")
|
||||
|
||||
def what_is_foo : Nat := by foo
|
||||
|
||||
/-- info: 2 -/
|
||||
#guard_msgs in
|
||||
#eval what_is_foo
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
macro "bar" : tactic => `(tactic|fail "first")
|
||||
macro_rules | `(tactic|bar) => `(tactic|fail "middle")
|
||||
macro_rules | `(tactic|bar) => `(tactic|fail "last")
|
||||
|
||||
/--
|
||||
error: first
|
||||
⊢ Nat
|
||||
-/
|
||||
#guard_msgs in
|
||||
def what_is_bar : Nat := by bar
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,36 +1,39 @@
|
|||
runTacticMustCatchExceptions.lean:2:25-2:28: error: type mismatch
|
||||
Iff.rfl
|
||||
has type
|
||||
?m ↔ ?m : Prop
|
||||
but is expected to have type
|
||||
1 ≤ a + b : Prop
|
||||
runTacticMustCatchExceptions.lean:3:25-3:28: error: type mismatch
|
||||
Iff.rfl
|
||||
has type
|
||||
?m ↔ ?m : Prop
|
||||
but is expected to have type
|
||||
a + b ≤ b : Prop
|
||||
runTacticMustCatchExceptions.lean:4:25-4:28: error: type mismatch
|
||||
Iff.rfl
|
||||
has type
|
||||
?m ↔ ?m : Prop
|
||||
but is expected to have type
|
||||
b ≤ 2 : Prop
|
||||
runTacticMustCatchExceptions.lean:9:18-9:21: error: type mismatch
|
||||
Iff.rfl
|
||||
has type
|
||||
?m ↔ ?m : Prop
|
||||
but is expected to have type
|
||||
1 ≤ a + b : Prop
|
||||
runTacticMustCatchExceptions.lean:10:14-10:17: error: type mismatch
|
||||
Iff.rfl
|
||||
has type
|
||||
?m ↔ ?m : Prop
|
||||
but is expected to have type
|
||||
a + b ≤ b : Prop
|
||||
runTacticMustCatchExceptions.lean:11:14-11:17: error: type mismatch
|
||||
Iff.rfl
|
||||
has type
|
||||
?m ↔ ?m : Prop
|
||||
but is expected to have type
|
||||
b ≤ 2 : Prop
|
||||
runTacticMustCatchExceptions.lean:2:25-2:28: error: The rfl tactic failed. Possible reasons:
|
||||
- The goal is not a reflexive relation (neither `=` nor a relation with a @[refl] lemma).
|
||||
- The arguments of the relation are not equal.
|
||||
Try using the reflexivitiy lemma for your relation explicitly, e.g. `exact Eq.rfl`.
|
||||
a b : Nat
|
||||
⊢ 1 ≤ a + b
|
||||
runTacticMustCatchExceptions.lean:3:25-3:28: error: The rfl tactic failed. Possible reasons:
|
||||
- The goal is not a reflexive relation (neither `=` nor a relation with a @[refl] lemma).
|
||||
- The arguments of the relation are not equal.
|
||||
Try using the reflexivitiy lemma for your relation explicitly, e.g. `exact Eq.rfl`.
|
||||
a b : Nat
|
||||
this : 1 ≤ a + b
|
||||
⊢ a + b ≤ b
|
||||
runTacticMustCatchExceptions.lean:4:25-4:28: error: The rfl tactic failed. Possible reasons:
|
||||
- The goal is not a reflexive relation (neither `=` nor a relation with a @[refl] lemma).
|
||||
- The arguments of the relation are not equal.
|
||||
Try using the reflexivitiy lemma for your relation explicitly, e.g. `exact Eq.rfl`.
|
||||
a b : Nat
|
||||
this✝ : 1 ≤ a + b
|
||||
this : a + b ≤ b
|
||||
⊢ b ≤ 2
|
||||
runTacticMustCatchExceptions.lean:9:18-9:21: error: The rfl tactic failed. Possible reasons:
|
||||
- The goal is not a reflexive relation (neither `=` nor a relation with a @[refl] lemma).
|
||||
- The arguments of the relation are not equal.
|
||||
Try using the reflexivitiy lemma for your relation explicitly, e.g. `exact Eq.rfl`.
|
||||
a b : Nat
|
||||
⊢ 1 ≤ a + b
|
||||
runTacticMustCatchExceptions.lean:10:14-10:17: error: The rfl tactic failed. Possible reasons:
|
||||
- The goal is not a reflexive relation (neither `=` nor a relation with a @[refl] lemma).
|
||||
- The arguments of the relation are not equal.
|
||||
Try using the reflexivitiy lemma for your relation explicitly, e.g. `exact Eq.rfl`.
|
||||
a b : Nat
|
||||
⊢ a + b ≤ b
|
||||
runTacticMustCatchExceptions.lean:11:14-11:17: error: The rfl tactic failed. Possible reasons:
|
||||
- The goal is not a reflexive relation (neither `=` nor a relation with a @[refl] lemma).
|
||||
- The arguments of the relation are not equal.
|
||||
Try using the reflexivitiy lemma for your relation explicitly, e.g. `exact Eq.rfl`.
|
||||
a b : Nat
|
||||
⊢ b ≤ 2
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Reference in a new issue