This PR modifies the `induction`/`cases` syntax so that the `with`
clause does not need to be followed by any alternatives. This improves
friendliness of these tactics, since this lets them surface the names of
the missing alternatives:
```lean
example (n : Nat) : True := by
induction n with
/- ~~~~
alternative 'zero' has not been provided
alternative 'succ' has not been provided
-/
```
Related to issue #3555
This PR makes it harder to create "fake" theorems about definitions that
are stubbed-out with `sorry` by ensuring that each `sorry` is not
definitionally equal to any other. For example, this now fails:
```lean
example : (sorry : Nat) = sorry := rfl -- fails
```
However, this still succeeds, since the `sorry` is a single
indeterminate `Nat`:
```lean
def f (n : Nat) : Nat := sorry
example : f 0 = f 1 := rfl -- succeeds
```
One can be more careful by putting parameters to the right of the colon:
```lean
def f : (n : Nat) → Nat := sorry
example : f 0 = f 1 := rfl -- fails
```
Most sources of synthetic sorries (recall: a sorry that originates from
the elaborator) are now unique, except for elaboration errors, since
making these unique tends to cause a confusing cascade of errors. In
general, however, such sorries are labeled. This enables "go to
definition" on `sorry` in the Infoview, which brings you to its origin.
The option `set_option pp.sorrySource true` causes the pretty printer to
show source position information on sorries.
**Details:**
* Adds `Lean.Meta.mkLabeledSorry`, which creates a sorry that is labeled
with its source position. For example, `(sorry : Nat)` might elaborate
to
```
sorryAx (Lean.Name → Nat) false
`lean.foo.12.8.12.13.8.13._sorry._@.lean.foo._hyg.153
```
It can either be made unique (like the above) or merely labeled. Labeled
sorries use an encoding that does not impact defeq:
```
sorryAx (Unit → Nat) false (Function.const Lean.Name ()
`lean.foo.14.7.13.7.13.69._sorry._@.lean.foo._hyg.174)
```
* Makes the `sorry` term, the `sorry` tactic, and every elaboration
failure create labeled sorries. Most are unique sorries, but some
elaboration errors are labeled sorries.
* Renames `OmissionInfo` to `DelabTermInfo` and adds configuration
options to control LSP interactions. One field is a source position to
use for "go to definition". This is used to implement "go to definition"
on labeled sorries.
* Makes hovering over a labeled `sorry` show something friendlier than
that full `sorryAx` expression. Instead, the first hover shows the
simplified ``sorry `«lean.foo:48:11»``. Hovering over that hover shows
the full `sorryAx`. Setting `set_option pp.sorrySource true` makes
`sorry` always start with printing with this source position
information.
* Removes `Lean.Meta.mkSyntheticSorry` in favor of `Lean.Meta.mkSorry`
and `Lean.Meta.mkLabeledSorry`.
* Changes `sorryAx` so that the `synthetic` argument is no longer
optional.
* Gives `addPPExplicitToExposeDiff` awareness of labeled sorries. It can
set `pp.sorrySource` when source positions differ.
* Modifies the delaborator framework so that delaborators can set Info
themselves without it being overwritten.
Incidentally closes#4972.
Inspired by [this Zulip
thread](https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/287929-mathlib4/topic/Is.20a.20.60definition_wanted.60.20keyword.20possible.3F/near/477260277).
This PR adds configuration options for
`decide`/`decide!`/`native_decide` and refactors the tactics to be
frontends to the same backend. Adds a `+revert` option that cleans up
the local context and reverts all local variables the goal depends on,
along with indirect propositional hypotheses. Makes `native_decide` fail
at elaboration time on failure without sacrificing performance (the
decision procedure is still evaluated just once). Now `native_decide`
supports universe polymorphism.
Closes#2072
New behavior: when in recovery mode, if any tactic fails in `all_goals`
then the metacontext is restored and all goals are admitted.
Without this, it can leave partially-solved metavariables and incomplete
goal lists.
Following up #5928, updates the syntax for `omega` and `solve_by_elim`
and restores the syntax quotations in their implementations.
Following up #5898, uses the new tactic syntax in the library, replacing
all uses of `(config := ...)`.
PR #5883 added a new syntax for tactic configuration, and this PR
enables it in most tactics. Example: `simp +contextual`.
There will be followup PRs to modify the remaining ones.
Breaking change: Tactics that are macros for `simp` or other core
tactics need to adapt. The easiest way is to replace `(config)?` with
`optConfig` and then in the syntax quotations replace `$[$cfg]?` by
`$cfg:optConfig`. For tactics that manipulate the configuration, see
`erw` for an example:
```lean
macro "erw" c:optConfig s:rwRuleSeq loc:(location)? : tactic => do
`(tactic| rw $[$(getConfigItems c)]* (transparency := .default) $s:rwRuleSeq $(loc)?)
```
Configuration options are processed left-to-right, so this forces the
`transparency` to always be `.default`.
This PR adds a new syntax for tactic and command configurations. It also
updates the elaborator construction command to be able to process this
new syntax.
We do not update core tactics yet. Once tactics switch over to it,
rather than (for example) writing `simp (config := { contextual := true,
maxSteps := 22})`, one can write `simp +contextual (maxSteps := 22)`.
The new syntax is reverse compatible in the sense that `(config := ...)`
still sets the entire configuration.
Note to metaprogrammers: Use `optConfig` instead of `(config)?`. The
elaborator generated by `declare_config_elab` accepts both old and new
configurations. The elaborator has also been written to be tolerant to
null nodes, so adapting to `optConfig` should be as easy as changing
just the syntax for your tactics and deleting `mkOptionalNode`.
Breaking change: The new system is mostly reverse compatible, however
the type of the generated elaborator now lands in `TacticM` to make use
of the current recovery state. Commands that wish to elaborate
configurations should now use `declare_command_config_elab` instead of
`declare_config_elab` to get an elaborator landing in `CommandElabM`.
This adds the ability to add the converse direction of a rewrite rule
not just in simp arguments `simp [← thm]`, but also as a global
attribute
```lean
attribute [simp ←] thm
```
This fixes#5828.
This can be undone with `attribute [-simp]`, although note that
`[-simp]` wins and cannot be undone at the moment (#5868).
Like `simp [← thm]` (see #4290), this will do an implicit `attribute
[-simp] thm` if the other direction is already defined.
This PR resolves the following issues related to goal state display:
1. In a new line after a `case` tactic with a completed proof, the state
of the proof in the `case` would be displayed, not the proof state after
the `case`
1. In the range of `next =>` / `case' ... =>`, the state of the proof in
the corresponding case would not be displayed, whereas this is true for
`case`
1. In the `suffices ... by` tactic, the tactic state of the `by` block
was not displayed after the `by` and before the first tactic
The incorrect goal state after `case` was caused by `evalCase` adding a
`TacticInfo` with the full block proof state for the full range of the
`case` block that the goal state selection has no means of
distinguishing from the `TacticInfo` with the same range that contains
the state after the whole `case` block. Narrowing the range of this
`TacticInfo` to `case ... =>` fixed this issue.
The lack of a case proof state on `next =>` was caused by the `case`
syntax that `next` expands to receiving noncanonical synthetic
`SourceInfo`, which is usually ignored by the language server. Adding a
token antiquotation for `next` fixed this issue.
The lack of a case proof state on `case' ... =>` was caused by
`evalCase'` not adding a `TacticInfo` with the full block state to the
range of `case' ... =>`. Adding this `TacticInfo` fixed this issue.
The tactic state of the block not being displayed after the `by` was
caused by the macro expansion of `suffices` to `have` not transferring
the trailing whitespace of the `by`. Ensuring that this trailing
whitespace information is transferred fixed this issue.
Fixes#2881.
... while at it also call `trivial` to close goals that can be trivially
closed.
---------
Co-authored-by: Siddharth <siddu.druid@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Henrik Böving <hargonix@gmail.com>
ac_nf is a counterpart to ac_rfl, which normalizes bitvector expressions
with respect to associativity and commutativity.
While there, also add test coverage for ac_rfl and ac_nf for BitVec,
complementing the existing test coverage.
building upon #3714, this (almost) implements the second half of #3302.
The main effect is that we now get a better error message when `rfl`
fails. For
```lean
example : n+1+m = n + (1+m) := by rfl
```
instead of the wall of text
```
The rfl tactic failed. Possible reasons:
- The goal is not a reflexive relation (neither `=` nor a relation with a @[refl] lemma).
- The arguments of the relation are not equal.
Try using the reflexivity lemma for your relation explicitly, e.g. `exact Eq.refl _` or
`exact HEq.rfl` etc.
n m : Nat
⊢ n + 1 + m = n + (1 + m)
```
we now get
```
error: tactic 'rfl' failed, the left-hand side
n + 1 + m
is not definitionally equal to the right-hand side
n + (1 + m)
n m : Nat
⊢ n + 1 + m = n + (1 + m)
```
Unfortunately, because of very subtle differences in semantics (which
transparency setting is used when reducing the goal and whether the
“implicit lambda” feature applies) I could not make this simply the only
`rfl` implementation. So `rfl` remains a macro and is still expanded to
`eq_refl` (difference transparency setting) and `exact Iff.rfl` and
`exact HEq.rfl` (implicit lambda) to not break existing code. This can
be revised later, so this still closes: #3302.
A user might still be puzzled *why* to terms are not defeq. Explaining
that better (“reduced to… and reduces to… etc.”) would also be great,
but that’s not specific to `rfl`, so better left for some other time.
This is "upstreaming" mathlib's `unfold_let` tactic by incorporating its
functionality into `unfold`. Now `unfold` can, in addition to unfolding
global definitions, unfold local definitions. The PR also updates the
`conv` version of the tactic.
An improvement over `unfold_let` is that it beta reduces unfolded local
functions.
Two features not present in `unfold` are that (1) `unfold_let` with no
arguments does zeta delta reduction of *all* local definitions, and also
(2) `unfold_let` can interleave unfoldings (in contrast, `unfold a b c`
is exactly the same as `unfold a; unfold b; unfold c`).
Closes RFC #4090
This is part of #3983.
Fine-grained equational lemmas are useful even for non-recursive
functions, so this adds them.
The new option `eqns.nonrecursive` can be set to `false` to have the old
behavior.
### Breaking channge
This is a breaking change: Previously, `rw [Option.map]` would rewrite
`Option.map f o` to `match o with … `. Now this rewrite will fail
because the equational lemmas require constructors here (like they do
for, say, `List.map`).
Remedies:
* Split on `o` before rewriting.
* Use `rw [Option.map.eq_def]`, which rewrites any (saturated)
application of `Option.map`
* Use `set_option eqns.nonrecursive false` when *defining* the function
in question.
### Interaction with simp
The `simp` tactic so far had a special provision for non-recursive
functions so that `simp [f]` will try to use the equational lemmas, but
will also unfold `f` else, so less breakage here (but maybe performance
improvements with functions with many cases when applied to a
constructor, as the simplifier will no longer unfold to a large
`match`-statement and then collapse it right away).
For projection functions and functions marked `[reducible]`, `simp [f]`
won’t use the equational theorems, and will only use its internal
unfolding machinery.
### Implementation notes
It uses the same `mkEqnTypes` function as for recursive functions, so we
are close to a consistency here. There is still the wrinkle that for
recursive functions we don't split matches without an interesting
recursive call inside. Unifying that is future work.
Fixes typo "reflexivitiy" to "reflexivity", and changes exact Eq.rfl to
exact rfl, since Eq.rfl does not exist.
(I got something confused wrt the bot message on #4367 and accidentally
closed that one, so making this one instead, which I think satisfies the
requirements it wanted.)
---------
Co-authored-by: Joachim Breitner <mail@joachim-breitner.de>
This assigns priorities to the equational lemmas so that more specific
ones
are tried first before a possible catch-all with possible
side-conditions.
We assign very low priorities to match the simplifiers behavior when
unfolding
a definition, which happens in `simpLoop`’ `visitPreContinue` after
applying
rewrite rules.
Definitions with more than 100 equational theorems will use priority 1
for all
but the last (a heuristic, not perfect).
fixes#4173, to some extent.
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>
This makes changes to the `GetElem` class so that it does not lead to
unnecessary overhead in container like `RBMap`.
The changes are to:
1. Make `getElem?` and `getElem!` part of the `GetElem` class so they
can be overridden in instances.
2. Introduce a `LawfulGetElem` class that contains correctness theorems
for `getElem?` and `getElem!` using the original definitions.
3. Reorganize definitions (e.g, by moving `GetElem` out of
`Init.Prelude`) so that the `GetElem` changes are feasible.
4. Provide `LawfulGetElem` instances to complement all existing
`GetElem` instances in Lean core.
To reduce the size of the PR, this doesn't do the work of providing new
`GetElem` instances for `RBMap`, `HashMap` etc. That will be done in a
separate PR (#3688) that depends on this.
---------
Co-authored-by: Mac Malone <tydeu@hatpress.net>
Previously:
If the `rfl` macro was going to fail, it would:
1. expand to `eq_refl`, which is implemented by
`Lean.Elab.Tactic.evalRefl`, and call `Lean.MVarId.refl` which would:
* either try kernel defeq (if in `.default` or `.all` transparency mode)
* otherwise try `IsDefEq`
* then fail.
2. Next expand to the `apply_rfl` tactic, which is implemented by
`Lean.Elab.Tactic.Rfl.evalApplyRfl`, and call `Lean.MVarId.applyRefl`
which would look for lemmas labelled `@[refl]`, and unfortunately in
Mathlib find `Eq.refl`, so try applying that (resulting in another
`IsDefEq`)
3. Because of an accidental duplication, if `Lean.Elab.Tactic.Rfl` was
imported, it would *again* expand to `apply_rfl`.
Now:
1. Same behaviour in `eq_refl`.
2. The `@[refl]` attribute will reject `Eq.refl`, and `MVarId.applyRefl`
will fail when applied to equality goals.
3. The duplication has been removed.
fixes#3770
Also start `rfl` with a `fail` message that is hopefully more helpful
than what we get now (see updated test output). This would be a cheaper
way to address #3302 without changing the implementation of rfl (as
tried in #3714).
This updates the rw? tactic from Mathlib to use lazy discriminator trees
and upstreams it.
---------
Co-authored-by: Scott Morrison <scott.morrison@gmail.com>
with this, hopefully more obvious array accesses will be handled
automatically.
Just like #3503, this PR does not investiate which of the exitsting
tactics in `get_elem_tactic_trivial` are subsumed now and could be
dropped without (too much) breakage.
This is still a draft PR, but includes the core exact? and apply?
tactics.
Still need to convert to builtin syntax and test on Std.
---------
Co-authored-by: David Thrane Christiansen <david@davidchristiansen.dk>
