This PR adds a linter (`linter.unusedSimpArgs`) that complains when a
simp argument (`simp [foo]`) is unused. It should do the right thing if
the `simp` invocation is run multiple times, e.g. inside `all_goals`. It
does not trigger when the `simp` call is inside a macro. The linter
message contains a clickable hint to remove the simp argument.
I chose to display a separate warning for each unused argument. This
means that the user has to click multiple times to remove all of them
(and wait for re-elaboration in between). But this just means multiple
endorphine kicks, and the main benefit over a single warning that would
have to span the whole argument list is that already the squigglies tell
the users about unused arguments.
This closes#4483.
Making Init and Std clean wrt to this linter revealed close to 1000
unused simp args, a pleasant experience for anyone enjoying tidying
things: #8905
This PR introduces an explicit `defeq` attribute to mark theorems that
can be used by `dsimp`. The benefit of an explicit attribute over the
prior logic of looking at the proof body is that we can reliably omit
theorem bodies across module boundaries. It also helps with intra-file
parallelism.
If a theorem is syntactically defined by `:= rfl`, then the attribute is
assumed and need not given explicitly. This is a purely syntactic check
and can be fooled, e.g. if in the current namespace, `rfl` is not
actually “the” `rfl` of `Eq`. In that case, some other syntax has be
used, such as `:= (rfl)`. This is also the way to go if a theorem can be
proved by `defeq`, but one does not actually want `dsimp` to use this
fact.
The `defeq` attribute will look at the *type* of the declaration, not
the body, to check if it really holds definitionally. Because of
different reduction settings, this can sometimes go wrong. Then one
should also write `:= (rfl)`, if one does not want this to be a defeq
theorem. (If one does then this is currently not possible, but it’s
probably a bad idea anyways).
The `set_option debug.tactic.simp.checkDefEqAttr true`, `dsimp` will
warn if could not apply a lemma due to a missing `defeq` attribute.
With `set_option backward.dsimp.useDefEqAttr.get false` one can revert
to the old behavior of inferring rfl-ness based on the theorem body.
Both options will go away eventually (too bad we can’t mark them as
deprecated right away, see #7969)
Meta programs that generate theorems (e.g. equational theorems) can use
`inferDefEqAttr` to set the attribute based on the theorem body of the
just created declaration.
This builds on #8501 to update Init to `@[expose]` a fair amount of
definitions that, if not exposed, would prevent some existing `:= rfl`
theorems from being `defeq` theorems. In the interest of starting
backwards compatible, I exposed these function. Hopefully many can be
un-exposed later again.
A mathlib adaption branch exists that includes both the meta programming
fixes and changes to the theorems (e.g. changing `:= by rfl` to `:=
rfl`).
With the module system there is now no special handling for `defeq`
theorem bodies, because we don’t look at the body anymore. The previous
hack is removed. The `defeq`-ness of the theorem needs to be checked in
the context of the theorem’s *type*; the error message contains a hint
if the defeq check fails because of the exported context.
This PR implements `Simp.Config.implicitDefEqsProofs`. When `true`
(default: `true`), `simp` will **not** create a proof term for a
rewriting rule associated with an `rfl`-theorem. Rewriting rules are
provided by users by annotating theorems with the attribute `@[simp]`.
If the proof of the theorem is just `rfl` (reflexivity), and
`implicitDefEqProofs := true`, `simp` will **not** create a proof term
which is an application of the annotated theorem.
The default setting does change the existing behavior. Users can use
`simp -implicitDefEqProofs` to force `simp` to create a proof term for
`rfl`-theorems. This can positively impact proof checking time in the
kernel.
This PR also fixes an issue in the `split` tactic that has been exposed
by this feature. It was looking for `split` candidates in proofs and
implicit arguments. See new test for issue exposed by the previous
feature.
---------
Co-authored-by: Kim Morrison <kim@tqft.net>
