Without this, it would not easy but perhaps be feasible to break
incrementality when editing command prefixes such as `set_option ... in
theorem` or also `theorem namesp.name ...` (which is a macro),
especially if at some later point we support incrementality in input
shifted by an edit. Explicit, sound support for these common cases will
be brought back soon.
Extends Lean's incremental reporting and reuse between commands into
various steps inside declarations:
* headers and bodies of each (mutual) definition/theorem
* `theorem ... := by` for each contained tactic step, including
recursively inside supported combinators currently consisting of
* `·` (cdot), `case`, `next`
* `induction`, `cases`
* macros such as `next` unfolding to the above
*Incremental reuse* means not recomputing any such steps if they are not
affected by a document change. *Incremental reporting* includes the
parts seen in the recording above: the progress bar and messages. Other
language server features such as hover etc. are *not yet* supported
incrementally, i.e. they are shown only when the declaration has been
fully processed as before.
---------
Co-authored-by: Scott Morrison <scott.morrison@gmail.com>
this fixes#4078. It is an alternative fix to the one in #4137,
suggested
by @kmill.
Incidentially, it makes the unused variable linter better. My theory is
that
if we don’t reset the info when backtracking, the binder shows up more
than
once in the info tree, and then it is considered “used”, although there
are
just multiple binders.
The expression tree elaborator computes a "maxType" that every leaf term
can be coerced to, but the elaborator was not ensuring that the entire
expression tree would have maxType as its type. This led to unexpected
errors in examples such as
```lean
example (a : Nat) (b : Int) :
a = id (a * b^2) := sorry
```
where it would say it could not synthesize an `HMul Int Int Nat`
instance (the `Nat` would propagate from the `a` on the LHS of the
equality). The issue in this case is that `HPow` uses default instances,
so while the expression tree elaborator decides that `a * b^2` should be
referring to an `Int`, the actual elaborated type is temporarily a
metavariable. Then, when the binrel elaborator is looking at both sides
of the equality, it decides that `Nat` will work and coercions don't
need to be inserted.
The fix is to unify the type of the resulting elaborated expression with
the computed maxType. One wrinkle is that `hasUncomparable` being false
is a valid test only if there are no leaf terms with unknown types (if
they become known, it could change `hasUncomparable` to true), so this
unification is only performed if the leaf terms all have known types.
Fixes issue described by Floris van Doorn on
[Zulip](https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/287929-mathlib4/topic/elaboration.20issue.20involving.20powers.20and.20sums/near/439243587).
as usually, just a matter of using the `WithInfo` variant.
Also simplifying the code a bit, it seems we can use
`realizeGlobalConstNoOverloadWithInfo` here.
(It's somehwatdubious API design that of all the functions in
the `{resolve/realise}GlobalConst{NoOverload,}{WithInfo,}` family
the one with the longest name is the one that should be used
unless one has a reason to use another one.)
Fixes: #4174
Summary:
- Take `synthPendingDepth` into account when caching TC results
- Add `maxSynthPendingDepth` option with default := 2.
- Add support for tracking `synthPending` failures when using
`set_option diagnostics true`
closes#2522closes#3313closes#3927
Identical to #4114 but with `maxSynthPendingDepth := 1`
closes#4114
cc @semorrison
I did not introduce `inductTheoremSuffix` etc, it seems more direct to
just spell out the suffix here. If we ever change it there are many
occurrences where they need to be changed anyways, so the definition
doesn't seem to save much work or add that much robustness.
we keep running into examples where working with well-founded recursion
is slow because defeq checks (which are all over the place, including
failing ones that are back-tracked) unfold well-founded definitions.
The definition of a function defined by well-founded recursion should be
an implementation detail that should only be peeked inside by the
equation generator and the functional induction generator.
We now mark the mutual recursive function as irreducible (if the user
did not
set a flag explicitly), and use `withAtLeastTransparency .all` when
producing
the equations.
Proofs can be fixed by using rewriting, or – a bit blunt, but nice for
adjusting
existing proofs – using `unseal` (a.k.a. `attribute [local
semireducible]`).
Mathlib performance does not change a whole lot:
http://speed.lean-fro.org/mathlib4/compare/08b82265-75db-4a28-b12b-08751b9ad04a/to/16f46d5e-28b1-41c4-a107-a6f6594841f8
Build instructions -0.126 %, four modules with significant instructions
decrease.
To reduce impact, these definitions were changed:
* `Nat.mod`, to make `1 % n` reduce definitionally, so that `1` as a
`Fin 2` literal
works nicely. Theorems with larger `Fin` literals tend to need a `unseal
Nat.modCore`
https://github.com/leanprover/lean4/pull/4098
* `List.ofFn` rewritten to be structurally recursive and not go via
`Array.ofFn`:
https://github.com/leanprover-community/batteries/pull/784
Alternative designs explored were
* Making `WellFounded.fix` irreducible.
One benefit is that recursive functions with equal definitions (possibly
after
instantiating fixed parameters) are defeq; this is used in mathlib to
relate
[`OrdinalApprox.gfpApprox`](https://leanprover-community.github.io/mathlib4_docs/Mathlib/SetTheory/Ordinal/FixedPointApproximants.html#OrdinalApprox.gfpApprox)
with `.lfpApprox`.
But the downside is that one cannot use `unseal` in a
targeted way, being explicit in which recursive function needs to be
reducible here.
And in cases where Lean does unwanted unfolding, we’d still unfold the
recursive
definition once to expose `WellFounded.fix`, leading to large terms for
often no good
reason.
* Defining `WellFounded.fix` to unroll defintionally once before hitting
a irreducible
`WellFounded.fixF`. This was explored in #4002. It shares most of the
ups and downs
with the previous variant, with the additional neat benefit that
function calls that
do not lead to recursive cases (e.g. a `[]` base case) reduce nicely.
This means that
the majority of existing `rfl` proofs continue to work.
Issue #4051, which demonstrates how badly things can go if wf recursive
functions can be
unrolled, showed that making the recursive function irreducible there
leads to noticeably
faster elaboration than making `WellFounded.fix` irreducible; this is
good evidence that
the present PR is the way to go.
This fixes https://github.com/leanprover/lean4/issues/3988
---------
Co-authored-by: Leonardo de Moura <leomoura@amazon.com>
Fixes#3270 by moving the deprecation check from
`Lean.Elab.Term.mkConsts` to `Lean.Elab.Term.mkConst`, so
`Lean.Elab.Term.mkBaseProjections`, `.elabAppLValsAux`, `.elabAppFn`,
and `.elabForIn` also hit the check. Not all of these really need to hit
the check, so I'll run `!bench` to see if it's a problem.
As [reported on
Zulip](https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/341532-lean4-dev/topic/Find.20references.20broken.20in.20lean.20core/near/437051935).
The `mainModuleName` was being set incorrectly when browsing lean core
sources, resulting in failure of cross-file server requests like "Find
References". Because the `srcSearchPath` is generated asynchronously, we
store it as a `Task Name` which is resolved some time before the header
is finished parsing. (I don't think the `.get` here will ever block,
because the srcSearchPath will be ready by the time the initial command
snap is requested.)
---------
Co-authored-by: Sebastian Ullrich <sebasti@nullri.ch>
This issue was affecting several Mathlib files.
@mattrobball @semorrison This is a different solution for the issue. The
comment at `Extra.lean` describes the new solution and documents the new
issues found with the previous one.
closes#4085
This is still experimental, but it implements identifier support in auto
tactics "in the obvious way". It also converts `quoteAutoTactic` to
generate Expr directly instead of going via syntax (this doesn't have
any effect other than increasing compile cost AFAICT).
even when rewriting the type of `h` becuase there is no expected type.
(When there is an expected type, it already tried both orientations.)
Also feeble attempt to include this information in the docstring without
writing half a manual chapter.
when dealing with well-founded recursive definitions, `tryURefl` isn't
going to be that useful and possibly slow. So disable that code path
when doing well-founded recursion.
(This is a variant of #4025 where I tried using `with_reducible` to
limit the impact of slow unfolding, but if we can get away with
disabling it complete, then even better.)
It currently only reports how many times each declaration has been
unfolded, and how often the `isDefEq` heuristic for `f a =?= f b` has
been used. Only counters above the threshold are reported.
The subst notation substitues in the expected type, if present, or in
the type of the argument, if no expected type is known.
If there is an expected type it already fails if it cannot find the
equations' left hand side or right hand side. But if the expected type
is not known and the equation's lhs is not present in the second
argument's type, it will happily do a no-op-substitution.
This is inconsistent and unlikely what the user intended to do, so we
now print an error message now.
This still only looks for the lhs; search for the rhs as well seems
prudent, but I’ll leave that for a separate PR, to better diagnose the
impact on mathlib.
This triggers a small number of pointless uses of subst in mathlib, see
https://github.com/leanprover-community/mathlib4/pull/12451
This makes `exact?%` behave like `by exact?` rather than `by apply?`.
If the underlying function `librarySearch` finds a suggestion which
closes the goal, use it (and add a code action). Otherwise log an error
and use `sorry`. The error is either
```text
`exact?%` didn't find any relevant lemmas
```
or
```text
`exact?%` could not close the goal. Try `by apply` to see partial suggestions.
```
---
[Zulip](https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/287929-mathlib4/topic/Useful.20term.20elaborators/near/434863856)
---------
Co-authored-by: Scott Morrison <scott.morrison@gmail.com>
