Now tactics supporting locations can also specify the goal among the locations by using the name `⊢` or `|-`. Also `rw at *` is implemented so that it will rewrite any hypotheses or the goal for which the whole sequence of rewrites succeeds. (This is different from `rw at h1 h2 ... hn |-`, which requires that all rewrites run to completion on each specified target.)
@digama0 I moved bitvec back to the main repo, and many nat lemmas.
I want these lemmas here for now. I will need some of them for future
decision procedures.
This modification was suggested by @kha.
TODO:
- Use `simp [-f]` instead of `simp without f`
- Allow users to remove hypothesis from `*`. Example: `simp [*, -h]`
for simplify using all hypotheses but `h`.
Before this commit, the `by_cases p` tactic would synthesize
`inst : decidable p` type class resolution, and then use the
`cases` tactic (dependent elimination). This would create
problems since occurrences of `inst` would be replaced with
`decidable.is_true h` in one branch, and `decidable.is_false h` in the
other. Where `h`s (we have two of them, one for each branch) are
fresh hypotheses introduced by the `cases` tactic.
For example, assume we have the term in our goal.
`@ite p inst A a b`
This term would become
`@ite p (decidable.is_true h) A a b` (in the first branch where `h : p`)
and
`@ite p (decidable.is_false h) A a b` (in the second where `h : not p`)
Now, suppose we try to executed the following tactic in the first branch
`rw [if_pos h]`
it will fail since `if_pos h` is actually `@if_pos p inst h`, and
we will not be able to unify
`@ite p (decidable.is_true h) A a b =?= @ite p inst ?A ?a ?b`
This commit workarounds this problem by applying cases on
`@decidable.em p inst : p or not p` instead of `inst : decidable p`.
Thus, the term `inst` is not replaced with `decidable.is_true h` and
`decidable.is_false h`.
The new test `tests/lean/run/simp_dif.lean` demonstrates the problem above.
See issue #1694.
There is an orthogonal issue. `simp` (and consequently `unfold`) cannot be used to
reduce projections (e.g., `has_add.add`). This issue has been
previously raised by @Armael, but it was not addressed yet.
closes#1675
After this commit, the following example works as expected.
```
example (p : nat → Prop) (a b : nat) : a = 0 ∧ b = 0 → p (a + b) → p 0 :=
begin
intros h₁ h₂,
simp [h₁] at *,
/- produces the state
(p : nat → Prop) (a b : nat)
h₁ : true
h₂ : p 0
|- p 0
-/
assumption
end
```
as expected.
Remark: the original issue raised by issue #1675 is actually solved by the
`simp_all` tactic.
The type-correctness of binary_rec_eq (the statement, not the proof) depends on unfolding the embedded well-founded definition of mod. This definition avoids it by using two simpler functions bodd and div2 that reduce well in the kernel.
