refactor: back rfl tactic primarily via apply_rfl (#3718)

building upon #3714, this (almost) implements the second half of #3302.

The main effect is that we now get a better error message when `rfl`
fails. For
```lean
example : n+1+m = n + (1+m) := by rfl
```
instead of the wall of text
```
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 reflexivity lemma for your relation explicitly, e.g. `exact Eq.refl _` or
`exact HEq.rfl` etc.
n m : Nat
⊢ n + 1 + m = n + (1 + m)
```
we now get
```
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
  n + 1 + m
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
  n + (1 + m)
n m : Nat
⊢ n + 1 + m = n + (1 + m)
```

Unfortunately, because of very subtle differences in semantics (which
transparency setting is used when reducing the goal and whether the
“implicit lambda” feature applies) I could not make this simply the only
`rfl` implementation. So `rfl` remains a macro and is still expanded to
`eq_refl` (difference transparency setting) and `exact Iff.rfl` and
`exact HEq.rfl` (implicit lambda) to not break existing code. This can
be revised later, so this still closes: #3302.

A user might still be puzzled *why* to terms are not defeq. Explaining
that better (“reduced to… and reduces to… etc.”) would also be great,
but that’s not specific to `rfl`, so better left for some other time.
This commit is contained in:
Joachim Breitner 2024-09-25 12:34:42 +02:00 committed by GitHub
parent c2f6297554
commit a3ca15d2b2
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: B5690EEEBB952194
9 changed files with 153 additions and 127 deletions

View file

@ -823,6 +823,7 @@ theorem iff_iff_implies_and_implies {a b : Prop} : (a ↔ b) ↔ (a → b) ∧ (
protected theorem Iff.rfl {a : Prop} : a ↔ a :=
Iff.refl a
-- And, also for backward compatibility, we try `Iff.rfl.` using `exact` (see #5366)
macro_rules | `(tactic| rfl) => `(tactic| exact Iff.rfl)
theorem Iff.of_eq (h : a = b) : a ↔ b := h ▸ Iff.rfl

View file

@ -364,31 +364,24 @@ syntax (name := fail) "fail" (ppSpace str)? : tactic
syntax (name := eqRefl) "eq_refl" : tactic
/--
`rfl` tries to close the current goal using reflexivity.
This is supposed to be an extensible tactic and users can add their own support
for new reflexive relations.
Remark: `rfl` is an extensible tactic. We later add `macro_rules` to try different
reflexivity theorems (e.g., `Iff.rfl`).
This tactic applies to a goal whose target has the form `x ~ x`,
where `~` is equality, heterogeneous equality or any relation that
has a reflexivity lemma tagged with the attribute @[refl].
-/
macro "rfl" : tactic => `(tactic| case' _ => 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 reflexivity lemma for your relation explicitly, e.g. `exact Eq.refl _` or
`exact HEq.rfl` etc.")
macro_rules | `(tactic| rfl) => `(tactic| eq_refl)
macro_rules | `(tactic| rfl) => `(tactic| exact HEq.rfl)
syntax "rfl" : tactic
/--
This tactic applies to a goal whose target has the form `x ~ x`,
where `~` is a reflexive relation other than `=`,
that is, a relation which has a reflexive lemma tagged with the attribute @[refl].
The same as `rfl`, but without trying `eq_refl` at the end.
-/
syntax (name := applyRfl) "apply_rfl" : tactic
-- We try `apply_rfl` first, beause it produces a nice error message
macro_rules | `(tactic| rfl) => `(tactic| apply_rfl)
-- But, mostly for backward compatibility, we try `eq_refl` too (reduces more aggressively)
macro_rules | `(tactic| rfl) => `(tactic| eq_refl)
-- Als for backward compatibility, because `exact` can trigger the implicit lambda feature (see #5366)
macro_rules | `(tactic| rfl) => `(tactic| exact HEq.rfl)
/--
`rfl'` is similar to `rfl`, but disables smart unfolding and unfolds all kinds of definitions,
theorems included (relevant for declarations defined by well-founded recursion).

View file

@ -16,6 +16,10 @@ provided the reflexivity lemma has been marked as `@[refl]`.
namespace Lean.Elab.Tactic.Rfl
/--
This tactic applies to a goal whose target has the form `x ~ x`, where `~` is a reflexive
relation, that is, a relation which has a reflexive lemma tagged with the attribute [refl].
-/
@[builtin_tactic Lean.Parser.Tactic.applyRfl] def evalApplyRfl : Tactic := fun stx =>
match stx with
| `(tactic| apply_rfl) => withMainContext do liftMetaFinishingTactic (·.applyRfl)

View file

@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
/-
Copyright (c) 2022 Newell Jensen. All rights reserved.
Released under Apache 2.0 license as described in the file LICENSE.
Authors: Newell Jensen, Thomas Murrills
Authors: Newell Jensen, Thomas Murrills, Joachim Breitner
-/
prelude
import Lean.Meta.Tactic.Apply
@ -58,13 +58,13 @@ def _root_.Lean.MVarId.applyRfl (goal : MVarId) : MetaM Unit := goal.withContext
-- NB: uses whnfR, we do not want to unfold the relation itself
let t ← whnfR <|← instantiateMVars <|← goal.getType
if t.getAppNumArgs < 2 then
throwError "rfl can only be used on binary relations, not{indentExpr (← goal.getType)}"
throwTacticEx `rfl goal "expected goal to be a binary relation"
-- Special case HEq here as it has a different argument order.
if t.isAppOfArity ``HEq 4 then
let gs ← goal.applyConst ``HEq.refl
unless gs.isEmpty do
throwError MessageData.tagged `Tactic.unsolvedGoals <| m!"unsolved goals\n{
throwTacticEx `rfl goal <| MessageData.tagged `Tactic.unsolvedGoals <| m!"unsolved goals\n{
goalsToMessageData gs}"
return
@ -76,8 +76,8 @@ def _root_.Lean.MVarId.applyRfl (goal : MVarId) : MetaM Unit := goal.withContext
unless success do
let explanation := MessageData.ofLazyM (es := #[lhs, rhs]) do
let (lhs, rhs) ← addPPExplicitToExposeDiff lhs rhs
return m!"The lhs{indentExpr lhs}\nis not definitionally equal to rhs{indentExpr rhs}"
throwTacticEx `apply_rfl goal explanation
return m!"the left-hand side{indentExpr lhs}\nis not definitionally equal to the right-hand side{indentExpr rhs}"
throwTacticEx `rfl goal explanation
if rel.isAppOfArity `Eq 1 then
-- The common case is equality: just use `Eq.refl`
@ -86,6 +86,9 @@ def _root_.Lean.MVarId.applyRfl (goal : MVarId) : MetaM Unit := goal.withContext
goal.assign (mkApp2 (mkConst ``Eq.refl us) α lhs)
else
-- Else search through `@refl` keyed by the relation
-- We change the type to `lhs ~ lhs` so that we do not the (possibly costly) `lhs =?= rhs` check
-- again.
goal.setType (.app t.appFn! lhs)
let s ← saveState
let mut ex? := none
for lem in ← (reflExt.getState (← getEnv)).getMatch rel reflExt.config do
@ -102,7 +105,7 @@ def _root_.Lean.MVarId.applyRfl (goal : MVarId) : MetaM Unit := goal.withContext
sErr.restore
throw e
else
throwError "rfl failed, no @[refl] lemma registered for relation{indentExpr rel}"
throwTacticEx `rfl goal m!"no @[refl] lemma registered for relation{indentExpr rel}"
/-- Helper theorem for `Lean.MVarId.liftReflToEq`. -/
private theorem rel_of_eq_and_refl {α : Sort _} {R : αα → Prop}

View file

@ -11,11 +11,10 @@ def check_sorted [x: LE α] [DecidableRel x.le] (a: Array α): Bool :=
sorted_from_var a 0
/--
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 reflexivity lemma for your relation explicitly, e.g. `exact Eq.refl _` or
`exact HEq.rfl` etc.
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
check_sorted #[0, 3, 3, 5, 8, 10, 10, 10]
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
true
⊢ check_sorted #[0, 3, 3, 5, 8, 10, 10, 10] = true
-/
#guard_msgs in

View file

@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
/-!
The (attribute-extensible) `rfl` tactic only unfolds the goal with reducible transparency to look
for a relation which may have a `refl` lemma associated with it. But historically, `rfl` also
invoked `eq_refl`, which more aggressively unfolds. This checks that this still works.
-/
def Foo (a b : Nat) : Prop := a = b
/--
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, no @[refl] lemma registered for relation
Foo
⊢ Foo 1 1
-/
#guard_msgs in
example : Foo 1 1 := by
apply_rfl
#guard_msgs in
example : Foo 1 1 := by
eq_refl
#guard_msgs in
example : Foo 1 1 := by
rfl

View file

@ -9,11 +9,10 @@ This file tests the `rfl` tactic:
-- First, let's see what `rfl` does:
/--
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 reflexivity lemma for your relation explicitly, e.g. `exact Eq.refl _` or
`exact HEq.rfl` etc.
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
false
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
true
⊢ false = true
-/
#guard_msgs in
@ -28,9 +27,9 @@ attribute [refl] P.refl
-- Plain error
/--
error: tactic 'apply_rfl' failed, The lhs
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
42
is not definitionally equal to rhs
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
23
⊢ P 42 23
-/
@ -42,9 +41,9 @@ example : P 42 23 := by apply_rfl
opaque withImplicitNat {n : Nat} : Nat
/--
error: tactic 'apply_rfl' failed, The lhs
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
@withImplicitNat 42
is not definitionally equal to rhs
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
@withImplicitNat 23
⊢ P withImplicitNat withImplicitNat
-/
@ -86,13 +85,15 @@ example : True ↔ True := by apply_rfl
example : P true true := by apply_rfl
example : Q true true := by apply_rfl
/--
error: rfl failed, no @[refl] lemma registered for relation
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, no @[refl] lemma registered for relation
Q'
⊢ Q' true true
-/
#guard_msgs in example : Q' true true := by apply_rfl -- Error
/--
error: rfl failed, no @[refl] lemma registered for relation
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, no @[refl] lemma registered for relation
R
⊢ R true true
-/
#guard_msgs in example : R true true := by apply_rfl -- Error
@ -102,14 +103,16 @@ example : True ↔ True := by with_reducible apply_rfl
example : P true true := by with_reducible apply_rfl
example : Q true true := by with_reducible apply_rfl
/--
error: rfl failed, no @[refl] lemma registered for relation
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, no @[refl] lemma registered for relation
Q'
⊢ Q' true true
-/
#guard_msgs in
example : Q' true true := by with_reducible apply_rfl -- Error
/--
error: rfl failed, no @[refl] lemma registered for relation
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, no @[refl] lemma registered for relation
R
⊢ R true true
-/
#guard_msgs in
example : R true true := by with_reducible apply_rfl -- Error
@ -125,14 +128,16 @@ example : True' ↔ True := by apply_rfl
example : P true' true := by apply_rfl
example : Q true' true := by apply_rfl
/--
error: rfl failed, no @[refl] lemma registered for relation
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, no @[refl] lemma registered for relation
Q'
⊢ Q' true' true'
-/
#guard_msgs in
example : Q' true' true := by apply_rfl -- Error
/--
error: rfl failed, no @[refl] lemma registered for relation
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, no @[refl] lemma registered for relation
R
⊢ R true' true'
-/
#guard_msgs in
example : R true' true := by apply_rfl -- Error
@ -143,14 +148,16 @@ example : True' ↔ True := by with_reducible apply_rfl
example : P true' true := by with_reducible apply_rfl
example : Q true' true := by with_reducible apply_rfl -- NB: No error, Q and true' reducible
/--
error: rfl failed, no @[refl] lemma registered for relation
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, no @[refl] lemma registered for relation
Q'
⊢ Q' true' true'
-/
#guard_msgs in
example : Q' true' true := by with_reducible apply_rfl -- Error
/--
error: rfl failed, no @[refl] lemma registered for relation
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, no @[refl] lemma registered for relation
R
⊢ R true' true'
-/
#guard_msgs in
example : R true' true := by with_reducible apply_rfl -- Error
@ -166,22 +173,24 @@ example : True'' ↔ True := by apply_rfl
example : P true'' true := by apply_rfl
example : Q true'' true := by apply_rfl
/--
error: rfl failed, no @[refl] lemma registered for relation
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, no @[refl] lemma registered for relation
Q'
⊢ Q' true'' true''
-/
#guard_msgs in
example : Q' true'' true := by apply_rfl -- Error
/--
error: rfl failed, no @[refl] lemma registered for relation
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, no @[refl] lemma registered for relation
R
⊢ R true'' true''
-/
#guard_msgs in
example : R true'' true := by apply_rfl -- Error
/--
error: tactic 'apply_rfl' failed, The lhs
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
true''
is not definitionally equal to rhs
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
true
⊢ true'' = true
-/
@ -197,45 +206,45 @@ with
#guard_msgs in
example : HEq true'' true := by with_reducible apply_rfl -- Error
/--
error: tactic 'apply_rfl' failed, The lhs
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
True''
is not definitionally equal to rhs
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
True
⊢ True'' ↔ True
-/
#guard_msgs in
example : True'' ↔ True := by with_reducible apply_rfl -- Error
/--
error: tactic 'apply_rfl' failed, The lhs
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
true''
is not definitionally equal to rhs
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
true
⊢ P true'' true
-/
#guard_msgs in
example : P true'' true := by with_reducible apply_rfl -- Error
/--
error: tactic 'apply_rfl' failed, The lhs
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
true''
is not definitionally equal to rhs
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
true
⊢ Q true'' true
-/
#guard_msgs in
example : Q true'' true := by with_reducible apply_rfl -- Error
/--
error: tactic 'apply_rfl' failed, The lhs
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
true''
is not definitionally equal to rhs
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
true
⊢ Q' true'' true
-/
#guard_msgs in
example : Q' true'' true := by with_reducible apply_rfl -- Error
/--
error: tactic 'apply_rfl' failed, The lhs
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
true''
is not definitionally equal to rhs
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
true
⊢ R true'' true
-/
@ -244,9 +253,9 @@ example : R true'' true := by with_reducible apply_rfl -- Error
-- Unequal
/--
error: tactic 'apply_rfl' failed, The lhs
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
false
is not definitionally equal to rhs
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
true
⊢ false = true
-/
@ -262,45 +271,45 @@ with
#guard_msgs in
example : HEq false true := by apply_rfl -- Error
/--
error: tactic 'apply_rfl' failed, The lhs
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
False
is not definitionally equal to rhs
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
True
⊢ False ↔ True
-/
#guard_msgs in
example : False ↔ True := by apply_rfl -- Error
/--
error: tactic 'apply_rfl' failed, The lhs
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
false
is not definitionally equal to rhs
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
true
⊢ P false true
-/
#guard_msgs in
example : P false true := by apply_rfl -- Error
/--
error: tactic 'apply_rfl' failed, The lhs
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
false
is not definitionally equal to rhs
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
true
⊢ Q false true
-/
#guard_msgs in
example : Q false true := by apply_rfl -- Error
/--
error: tactic 'apply_rfl' failed, The lhs
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
false
is not definitionally equal to rhs
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
true
⊢ Q' false true
-/
#guard_msgs in
example : Q' false true := by apply_rfl -- Error
/--
error: tactic 'apply_rfl' failed, The lhs
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
false
is not definitionally equal to rhs
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
true
⊢ R false true
-/
@ -308,9 +317,9 @@ is not definitionally equal to rhs
example : R false true := by apply_rfl -- Error
/--
error: tactic 'apply_rfl' failed, The lhs
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
false
is not definitionally equal to rhs
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
true
⊢ false = true
-/
@ -326,45 +335,45 @@ with
#guard_msgs in
example : HEq false true := by with_reducible apply_rfl -- Error
/--
error: tactic 'apply_rfl' failed, The lhs
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
False
is not definitionally equal to rhs
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
True
⊢ False ↔ True
-/
#guard_msgs in
example : False ↔ True := by with_reducible apply_rfl -- Error
/--
error: tactic 'apply_rfl' failed, The lhs
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
false
is not definitionally equal to rhs
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
true
⊢ P false true
-/
#guard_msgs in
example : P false true := by with_reducible apply_rfl -- Error
/--
error: tactic 'apply_rfl' failed, The lhs
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
false
is not definitionally equal to rhs
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
true
⊢ Q false true
-/
#guard_msgs in
example : Q false true := by with_reducible apply_rfl -- Error
/--
error: tactic 'apply_rfl' failed, The lhs
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
false
is not definitionally equal to rhs
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
true
⊢ Q' false true
-/
#guard_msgs in
example : Q' false true := by with_reducible apply_rfl -- Error
/--
error: tactic 'apply_rfl' failed, The lhs
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
false
is not definitionally equal to rhs
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
true
⊢ R false true
-/
@ -398,18 +407,18 @@ example : HEq true 1 := by with_reducible apply_rfl -- Error
inductive S : Bool → Bool → Prop where | refl : a = true → S a a
attribute [refl] S.refl
/--
error: tactic 'apply_rfl' failed, The lhs
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
true
is not definitionally equal to rhs
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
false
⊢ S true false
-/
#guard_msgs in
example : S true false := by apply_rfl -- Error
/--
error: tactic 'apply_rfl' failed, The lhs
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
true
is not definitionally equal to rhs
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
false
⊢ S true false
-/

View file

@ -31,11 +31,10 @@ example : foo (n+1) = foo n := rfl
-- also for closed terms
/--
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 reflexivity lemma for your relation explicitly, e.g. `exact Eq.refl _` or
`exact HEq.rfl` etc.
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
foo 0
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
0
⊢ foo 0 = 0
-/
#guard_msgs in
@ -43,11 +42,10 @@ example : foo 0 = 0 := by rfl
-- It only works on closed terms:
/--
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 reflexivity lemma for your relation explicitly, e.g. `exact Eq.refl _` or
`exact HEq.rfl` etc.
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
foo (n + 1)
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
foo n
n : Nat
⊢ foo (n + 1) = foo n
-/

View file

@ -1,45 +1,39 @@
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 reflexivity lemma for your relation explicitly, e.g. `exact Eq.refl _` or
`exact HEq.rfl` etc.
runTacticMustCatchExceptions.lean:2:25-2:28: error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
1
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
a + b
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 reflexivity lemma for your relation explicitly, e.g. `exact Eq.refl _` or
`exact HEq.rfl` etc.
runTacticMustCatchExceptions.lean:3:25-3:28: error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
a + b
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
b
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 reflexivity lemma for your relation explicitly, e.g. `exact Eq.refl _` or
`exact HEq.rfl` etc.
runTacticMustCatchExceptions.lean:4:25-4:28: error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
b
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
2
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 reflexivity lemma for your relation explicitly, e.g. `exact Eq.refl _` or
`exact HEq.rfl` etc.
runTacticMustCatchExceptions.lean:9:18-9:21: error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
1
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
a + b
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 reflexivity lemma for your relation explicitly, e.g. `exact Eq.refl _` or
`exact HEq.rfl` etc.
runTacticMustCatchExceptions.lean:10:14-10:17: error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
a + b
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
b
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 reflexivity lemma for your relation explicitly, e.g. `exact Eq.refl _` or
`exact HEq.rfl` etc.
runTacticMustCatchExceptions.lean:11:14-11:17: error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
b
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
2
a b : Nat
⊢ b ≤ 2