This PR fixes `split` in the presence of metavariables in the target.
The fix consists of replacing an internal use of `apply` for
instantiating match splitters by a new, simpler variant `applyN`. This
new `applyN` is not prone to #8436, which is the ultimate cause for
`split` failing on targets containing metavariables.
---------
Co-authored-by: Sebastian Graf <sg@lean-fro.org>
Co-authored-by: Joachim Breitner <mail@joachim-breitner.de>
This PR changes the `simpMatch` function, used inside the equation
generator for WF-rec functions, to not do eta-expansion.
This makes the process a bit more robust and disciplined, and avoids
removing match-statements (and introduce projections and dependencies)
that we'd rather split instead.
Also adds more tracing to the equational theorem generator.
Extracted from #6898.
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>
This PR avoids runtime array bounds checks in places where it can
trivially be done at compile time.
None of these changes are of particular consequence: I mostly wanted to
learn how much we do this, and what the obstacles are to doing it less.
PR #3432 will introduce more operations on `MatcherApp`, including somet
that have more dependencies.
This change prepares by introducing `Lean.Meta.Match.MatcherApp.Basic`
for the basic definition, and `Lean.Meta.MatcherApp.Transform` for the
transformations, currently `addArg` and `refineThrough`, but more to
come.
Before this commit, `Simproc`s were defined as `Expr -> SimpM (Option Step)`, where `Step` is inductively defined as follows:
```
inductive Step where
| visit : Result → Step
| done : Result → Step
```
Here, `Result` is a structure containing the resulting expression and a proof demonstrating its equality to the input. Notably, the proof is optional; in its absence, `simp` assumes reflexivity.
A simproc can:
- Fail by returning `none`, indicating its inapplicability. In this case, the next suitable simproc is attempted, along with other simp extensions.
- Succeed and invoke further simplifications using the `.visit`
constructor. This action returns control to the beginning of the
simplification loop.
- Succeed and indicate that the result should not undergo further
simplifications. However, I find the current approach unsatisfactory, as it does not align with the methodology employed in `Transform.lean`, where we have the type:
```
inductive TransformStep where
/-- Return expression without visiting any subexpressions. -/
| done (e : Expr)
/--
Visit expression (which should be different from current expression) instead.
The new expression `e` is passed to `pre` again.
-/
| visit (e : Expr)
/--
Continue transformation with the given expression (defaults to current expression).
For `pre`, this means visiting the children of the expression.
For `post`, this is equivalent to returning `done`. -/
| continue (e? : Option Expr := none)
```
This type makes it clearer what is going on. The new `Simp.Step` type is similar but use `Result` instead of `Expr` because we need a proof.
