This PR reworks the `simp` set around the `Id` monad, to not elide or
unfold `pure` and `Id.run`
In particular, it stops encoding the "defeq abuse" of `Id X = X` in the
statements of theorems, instead using `Id.run` and `pure` to pass back
and forth between these two spellings. Often when writing these with
`pure`, they generalize to other lawful monads; though such changes were
split off to other PRs.
This fixes the problem with the current simp set where `Id.run (pure x)`
is simplified to `Id.run x`, instead of the desirable `x`.
This is particularly bad because the` x` is sometimes inferred with type
`Id X` instead of `X`, which prevents other `simp` lemmas about `X` from
firing.
Making `Id` reducible instead is not an option, as then the `Monad`
instances would have nothing to key on.
---------
Co-authored-by: Sebastian Graf <sg@lean-fro.org>
Co-authored-by: Kim Morrison <kim@tqft.net>
Co-authored-by: Paul Reichert <6992158+datokrat@users.noreply.github.com>
This PR fixes a bug where the unknown identifier code actions wouldn't
work correctly for some unknown identifier error spans and adjusts
several unknown identifier spans to actually end on the identifier in
question.
The following additional adjustments are made:
- The fallback mechanism of the unknown identifier code actions is
removed, since it could produce severely incorrect suggestions for
unknown identifier errors on fields.
- A performance bug when using the code action to import all unknown
identifiers is fixed.
- A bug that occurs when the elaborator produces multiple overlapping
completion infos is fixed.
- A bug in the snapshot selection that could cause it to wait for
snapshots in snapshots with non-canonical syntax is fixed.
- Some invariants of the snapshot tree are documented.
- The snapshot tree formatting is adjusted to display the final info
tree again.
This PR moves away from using `List.get` / `List.get?` / `List.get!` and
`Array.get!`, in favour of using the `GetElem` mediated getters. In
particular it deprecates `List.get?`, `List.get!` and `Array.get?`. Also
adds `Array.back`, taking a proof, matching `List.getLast`.
This PR fixes a bug where the goal state selection would sometimes
select incomplete incremental snapshots on whitespace, leading to an
incorrect "no goals" response. Fixes#6594, a regression that was
originally introduced in 4.11.0 by #4727.
The fundamental cause of #6594 was that the snapshot selection would
always select the first snapshot with a range that contains the cursor
position. For tactics, whitespace had to be included in this range.
However, in the test case of #6594, this meant that the snapshot
selection would also sometimes pick a snapshot before the cursor that
still contains the cursor in its whitespace, but which also does not
necessarily contain all the information needed to produce a correct goal
state. Specifically, at the `InfoTree`-level, when the cursor is in
whitespace, we distinguish competing goal states by their level of
indentation. The snapshot selection did not have access to this
information, so it necessarily had to do the wrong thing in some cases.
This PR fixes the issue by adjusting the snapshot selection for goals to
explicitly account for whitespace and indentation, and refactoring the
language processor architecture to thread enough information through to
the snapshot selection so that it can decide which snapshots to use
without having to force too many tasks, which would destroy
incrementality in goal state requests.
Specifically, this PR makes the following adjustments:
- Refactor `SnapshotTask` to contain both a `Syntax` and a `Range`.
Before, `SnapshotTask`s had a single range that was used both for
displaying file progress information and for selecting snapshots in
server requests. For most snapshots, this range did not include
whitespace, though for tactics it did. Now, the `reportingRange` field
of `SnapshotTask` is intended exclusively for reporting file progress
information, and the `Syntax` is used for selecting snapshots in server
requests. Importantly, the `Syntax` contains the full range information
of the snapshot, i.e. its regular range and its range including
whitespace.
- Adjust all call-sites of `SnapshotTask` to produce a reasonable
`Syntax`.
- Adjust the goal snapshot selection to account for whitespace and
indentation, as the `InfoTree` goal selection does.
- Fix a bug in the snapshot tree tracing that would cause it to render
the `Info` of a snapshot at the wrong location when `trace.Elab.info`
was also set.
This PR is based on #6329.
This PR adds preliminary support for inlay hints, as well as support for
inlay hints that denote the auto-implicits of a function. Hovering over
an auto-implicit displays its type and double-clicking the auto-implicit
inserts it into the text document.
This PR is an extension of #3910.
### Known issues
- In VS Code, when inserting an inlay hint, the inlay hint may linger
for a couple of seconds before it disappears. This is a defect of the VS
Code implementation of inlay hints and cannot adequately be resolved by
us.
- When making a change to the document, it may take a couple of seconds
until the inlay hints respond to the change. This is deliberate and
intended to reduce the amount of inlay hint flickering while typing. VS
Code has a mechanism of its own for this, but in my experience it is
still far too sensitive without additional latency.
- Inserting an auto-implicit inlay hint that depends on an auto-implicit
meta-variable causes a "failed to infer binder type" error. We can't
display these meta-variables in the inlay hint because they don't have a
user-displayable name, so it is not clear how to resolve this problem.
- Inlay hints are currently always resolved eagerly, i.e. we do not
support the `textDocument/inlayHint/resolve` request yet. Implementing
support for this request is future work.
### Other changes
- Axioms did not support auto-implicits due to an oversight in the
implementation. This PR ensures they do.
- In order to reduce the amount of inlay hint flickering when making a
change to the document, the language server serves old inlay hints for
parts of the file that have not been processed yet. This requires LSP
request handler state (that sometimes must be invalidated on
`textDocument/didChange`), so this PR introduces the notion of a
stateful LSP request handler.
- The partial response mechanism that we use for semantic tokens, where
we simulate incremental LSP responses by periodically emitting refresh
requests to the client, is generalized to accommodate both inlay hints
and semantic tokens. Additionally, it is made more robust to ensure that
we never emit refresh requests while a corresponding request is in
flight, which causes VS Code to discard the respond of the request, as
well as to ensure that we keep prompting VS Code to send another request
if it spuriously decides not to respond to one of our refresh requests.
- The synthetic identifier of an `example` had the full declaration as
its (non-canonical synthetic) range. Since we need a reasonable position
for the identifier to insert an inlay hint for the auto-implicits of an
`example`, we change the (canonical synthetic) range of the synthetic
identifier to that of the `example` keyword.
- The semantic highlighting request handling is moved to a separate
file.
### Breaking changes
- The semantic highlighting request handler is not a pure request
handler anymore, but a stateful one. Notably, this means that clients
that extend the semantic highlighting of the Lean language server with
the `chainLspRequestHandler` function must now use the
`chainStatefulLspRequestHandler` function instead.
This PR fixes a regression where goals that don't exist were being
displayed. The regression was triggered by #5835 and originally caused
by #4926.
Bug originally reported at
https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/270676-lean4/topic/tactic.20doesn't.20change.20primary.20goal.20state/near/488957772.
The cause of this issue was that #5835 made certain `SourceInfo`s
canonical, which was directly transferred to several `TacticInfo`s by
#4926. The goal state selection mechanism would then pick up these extra
`TacticInfo`s.
The approach taken by this PR is to ensure that the `SourceInfo` that is
being transferred by #4926 is noncanonical.
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.
I noticed that a change to `Lean.PrettyPrinter.Delaborator.Builtins`
rebuilt more modules than I expected, so I moved a definition and
reduced some dependcies.
More reduction would be possible to move const-delaboration out of the
big `Lean.PrettyPrinter`, and import from `Lean.PrettyPrinter`
selectively.
As [reported on
Zulip](https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/113488-general/topic/maybe.20a.20cache.20bug.3F).
We expected that for sound reuse of elaboration results, it is
sufficient to compare the old and new syntax tree's structure and atoms
including position info, but not the whitespace in between them.
However, we have at least one request handler, the goal view, that
inspects the whitespace after a tactic and thus could return incorrect
results on reuse. For now we implement the straightforward fix of
checking the whitespace as well. Alternatives like updating the
whitespace stored in the reused info tree are tbd.
This has the slight disadvantage that adding whitespace at the end of a
tactic will re-execute it (or the entire body, but not the header, if
the body is not a tactic block), but only up to typing the first
character of the next tactic or command.
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>
